Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

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

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Bisajärvi in evening light from the southwest in Sipoonkorpi, Vantaa, Finland, 2021 May.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2021 at 21:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aerial view of Bisajärvi in evening light from the southwest in Sipoonkorpi, Vantaa, Finland in 2021 May.

File:Bo official portrait.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2021 at 14:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The official portrait of the Obama family dog, "Bo", a Portuguese water dog, on the South Lawn of the White House. Bo recently died of cancer.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The official portrait of the Obama family dog, "Bo", a Portuguese water dog, on the South Lawn of the White House. Bo recently died of cancer. Created by Chuck Kennedy - uploaded by Xolani - nominated by ArionEstar -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like to be able to see the eyes. A previous Obama image uploaded by this user was challenged on licencing. Is this one OK? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sad to hear of Bo's passing. However, I don't think this image has a great composition, and the shadows are distracting. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a great portrait to me, per Charles' point about his eyes not being that easily visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Lion (Panthera leo) male and cub Etosha.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2021 at 14:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lion (Panthera leo) male and cub in Etosha National Park, Namibia
  • I tried a tighter crop but lost the sky. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really an extraordinary photo! I suppose this is a lion family (or part of one), as we can also see the sleeping lioness and a couple of other lions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    Full family, no other lions anywhere near that we could see (we were self-driving). Lioness and two more cubs in the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You could consider changing the file description accordingly and then also the filename after the voting period ends. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Common ceres forester (Euphaedra phaethusa phaethusa) male.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2021 at 13:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common ceres forester (Euphaedra phaethusa) male

File:Gargoyle depicting Hodgetts, Chichester Cathedral.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2021 at 13:54:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gargoyle, Chichester Cathedral
  • Probably was then, but it doesn't work for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Vineyard cottage - Weingarten 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2021 at 12:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Yara Belle Plaine.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2021 at 04:53:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yara Belle Plaine

File:Copacabana, Bolivia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2021 at 19:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Bolivia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Christopher Crouzet - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The light does not shine well on the city. One part is too much shadowed whil the other aprt is too bright. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose The light is indeed not optimal, and also for a FP of such a scene, I would much prefer a higher-resolution panorama (e.g. stitched from multiple shots). The composition is really nice, though, including the boats. --Domob (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Haindlkar trail mark 20200622.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2021 at 11:27:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Typical Austrian hiking trail mark on a tree in Nationalpark Gesäuse
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other_objects_in_landscapespictures/Sports#Individual sports -->
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is not a very special or exciting scene, but I like the composition and the contrast between the mark on the tree and the calm forest background. --Domob (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Domob (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the composition does not give me a wow feeling --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, not very special or exciting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. The slanted tree doesn't help and the image is a bit flat. Some guiding lines like maybe a path would help to create a composition. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Sharp Centre for Design - fragment of facade.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2021 at 09:51:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sharp Centre for Design - fragment of facade, Toronto, Canada.

File:Mount Murchison.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2021 at 05:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Murchison

File:Ilustración de Victoria Aguirre Anchorena (mujer Argentina).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 May 2021 at 17:12:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ilustration of Victoria Aguirre Anchorena
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created/uploaded by Rocío Mikulic - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 17:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ezarateesteban 17:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Am I understanding this correctly that this is a digitally created portrait of the artist Victoria Aguirre Anchorena? I mean, it can't be made by her since she died in 1927, so who made this digital portrait? The description need to be clarified, the gallery probably changed if this is a computer-generated image and the categories needs to be sorted out. --Cart (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It's part of contest Commons:Ilustratona made by the uploader, based on several pictures of the women, but without copying nothing of them. Ezarateesteban 17:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

PS:The ilustration is made in a paper and next digitalized Ezarateesteban 18:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks for the explanation, I am very well aware of the process of making a portrait illustration. You need to add that to the description on the file page for clarification, and please fix the categories. Was she know for her cosmetics? Otherwise I find it a bit odd that a female painter is depicted as if she is putting on rouge instead of painting on her work. --Cart (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Ezarateesteban 18:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pepe piton (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Señoritaleona (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Scann (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since this is digital art, the only criterion would seem to be whether the viewer considers it good art or not. And I don't. It's silly, per Cart's comment, her face is strangely shaped for no apparent artistic reason, and there's a bunch of what we could call posterization instead of a lifelike gradient or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • First, thanks so much to Rocio and other participants in this contest! I'm so glad it attracted some high-quality work. It's important to remember that FPC almost never sees work like this. We mostly look at photographs and photographs (or scans) of notable art (and a diagram/infographic every once in a while). We don't regularly see original illustrations like this, so if you get a negative response here that doesn't mean it's not a very good and useful illustration; it means FPC might not be the right venue (certainly COM:VIC makes sense, at least).
    This image is a stylized illustration, which takes some liberties with proportions in a way that's common for illustrations (it reminds me of some things I've seen, which I cannot put a finger on right now), but which might be a little confusing if the purpose is encyclopedic illustration. I'm also not sure about the choice to have her applying make-up per cart. Regardless, it's well done and I appreciate the level of finish. I think it's something you should be proud of, and to contribute it with a free license is appreciated. I would probably come in with a support, but I worry that the first three votes (other than the nominator) came in quickly from three people who have never before participated at FPC. That's often a sign of canvassing. Since our process here is based on numbers/voting, canvassing hurts the integrity of what we're trying to do here. Hopefully I'm wrong. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This is very much in naïve Latin American art style, so I don't mind the technique. Hey, even Frida Kahlo used it (even the color sceme), so I can understand why it might look familiar to Rhododendrites. It is up to the artist how a person is depicted. I have also seen other works of art, as non-realistic as this, used in articles, can't remember where now though, but they were up for discussion when I made that first Kim Jong-un image back in the Stone Age. Funny this should surface just as I made a sketch of another creepy guy, see my post here after A.Savin's comment here. But with this image, I do find the way with the putting on rouge a bit demeaning for a portrait of a female artist if this isn't something she is known for in some way. As for canvassing, it's often as simple as that a nominator posts a comment saying "Hey, a drawing by one of 'our' illustrator is up at FPC", and people just want to be supportive to their wiki community. --Cart (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Found two of the articles with murals: Harry Parr-Davies and Daniel Peredo. --Cart (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Re: canvassing. Indeed. Which is why, when I tell people in my various wiki communities I have something at FPC, I always ask them not to vote unless they're a regular participant and would've voted anyway. We're even more vulnerable to canvassing here at FPC than discussions on-wiki because we're completely numbers based. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My father had a very large collection of books with comic illustrations and similar prints. I'm well aware of illustrations and have an appreciation for those I find good. By the way, I've never liked Kahlo's work, either. Neither in music nor art do I take received opinion of these times as Gospel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Acknowledging that an art style exist and naming it is not the same as liking it. Personally I don't think this is an FP-rated example of the genre. --Cart (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Understood. I just don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I've supported a large number of nominations of illustrations and nominated some myself. They were pretty much all at least 100 years old, but that's just because of copyright restrictions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. -- Karelj (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose I could see what the artist was going for, but it's not there yet. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Me gusta la técnica y no tengo ningún problema con cómo se retrata a esta mujer argentina, a diferencia de los usuarios previos --Carlillasa (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Green heron in PP (14296).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 May 2021 at 14:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green heron in Brooklyn
  • It could be better, some editing "ball" now visible but good shot, ISO 2000. Bird is like mirrored, polarizer used ? --Mile (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC) p.S. I would write location. Prospect park migth be good for your neighbour, but for me not much. Country, State etc.
    • Sure, but without the original note I'm not sure it's very visible. It's true that my Photoshop skills are not as good as some, though. No polarizer. I took probably 100 shots of this bird; this one had the best combination of sharpness, reflection, and light (there wasn't much, though, hence 2000 ISO). Also, I added additional info to the description. I typically use just "Prospect Park" and "Central Park" because the ones I'm talking about are the default categories (Category:Prospect Park/Category:Central Park), but it doesn't hurt to have it in the description, too. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well at least you moved ISO barrier on "Commons FP's" and texture is excellent. --Mile (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Tulipa bakeri 'Lilac Wonder' 09-05-2021. (d.j.b).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 May 2021 at 06:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • ✓ Done. Photos re-stacked. Thanks for the review.--Famberhorst (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment one more error on bottom right corner (note added). --Ivar (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background has been replaced with artificial background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Artificial backgrounds have the same info all over when you pull the levels to extremes (saturation and light); they are homogenous. This is what this photo looks like when you do that and there are plenty of blotches and information in the background. To compare, I made an artificial background for the photo, and with the same enhancement settings it looks like this. There is a big difference. You can download the photo and do this test yourself in Photoshop. --Cart (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • All I am doing is reading the statement on the file page. Check it out Cart. May be that is wrong, and if so I will change my vote. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see that, thanks Charles for pointing it out, I only went by what I see in the photo and it doesn't seems to be added in a computer. I wonder if something hasn't gone lost in translation here. Famberhorst, when you write "artificial background", do you mean that you photographed the flower against a black wall or paper as opposed to a natural environment outdoors? Artificial for me is when the background is added later using color in the computer. We might be talking about two different things here. --Cart (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The pot with the flower was placed against a dark background and then photographed.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarifying. So only a language misunderstanding and how to use the 'retouched' template. I see that you have removed the text from the template. The template can be completely removed since it is not needed for the very small corrections you have made. It should only be used for bigger alterations in the computer. --Cart (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Staring Down Hurricane Florence.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 May 2021 at 04:51:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Eye of Hurricane Florence

File:Veery in CP (43277).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2021 at 19:07:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Veery in Central Park

File:Ulmus laevis flowers - Keila.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2021 at 16:32:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ulmus laevis

File:Mount Shasta as seen from Bunny Flat.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2021 at 15:43:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Shasta as seen from Bunny Flat Trailhead in May 2021
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, I took many shots that day. I'm extremely happy about the fact that I drove up to the volcano on a day with some clouds in the sky, which is a rare occurence here in California. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Jinji Lake Suzhou November 2017 002.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2021 at 01:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jinji Lake, Suzhou
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#China
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ 01:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♥ 01:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have lots of photos of modern buildings taken from across a river/waterway, and I don't think this is exceptional. The weather or other conditions mean there isn't much detail and the sky isn't a pleasant colour. -- Colin (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unbalanced composition with a too bright back attracting all attention of the viewer (which could have been ok, but the bottom part suffers from it) --RolfHill (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose The haze seems to blur out the background buildings in an unflattering way. Also, I wish we could see the "pants" structure of the pants building, but I realize that angle may not be possible. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not share the opposing criticisms above, it is well balanced and composed, a very good quality, and a pleasant atmosphere. I think it is above almost night city images that we have. Though I would have a bit more processed it with e.g. maybe a bit more of saturation to accentuate the color vs gray contrast. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Downsized? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    No, perspective-corrected and cropped. -- King of ♥ 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing so special for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The background on the right is not very interesting but I like the rest. --Ermell (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support The opposes have a point at thumbnail, but it looks better to me at full size. Suzhou's skyline doesn't get as much photographic attention since Shanghai and Lujiazui aren't so far away, but it's still pretty good. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition as well, and the bit of fog gives it a distinctive atmosphere. --Domob (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin and others,sorry --Commonists 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is quite interesting I think. --Steven Sun (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Buff-banded Rail 1 - Newington.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2021 at 15:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Buff-banded Rail
  • To clarify, the extremely special and very expensive lens used here and on a lot of JJ Harrison's bird photos, allows the photographer to select a very narrow band of perfectly sharp DoF while the rest of the image (foreground and background) becomes a smooth bokeh. If the bird is photographed in flight up in the sky, this effect is hardly noticeable, but at ground level it can look somewhat surreal. It's a style choice; some like and some don't. More info about the lens here. --Cart (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we please avoid making personal negative comments ("I've never liked John Harrison's blurred forgrounds"). This is absolutely standard at an advanced level of wildlife photography. See this and this, this, this and this, etc, etc, etc. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ahum, this is not about getting down and dirty for a low level of shooting; Charles himself recommends it both here and here on current nominations. It's only this specific lens with its bokeh capabilities that's bugging him. We've heard it several times before (Like here for example). --Cart (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
No disrespect, Charles, but there is low and there is on-the-ground low. That lizard photo was either taken on sloping ground [it was Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)] or from about knee height (otherwise we'd see sky or distant shrubs/trees in the background). The links I gave show some examples of the difference achieved when you get really really low. I remember reading a discussion from JJ with Diliff many many years ago that described crawling along mud flats on one's belly for a very long distance. The lizard photo was taken from 2.4m according to the EXIF with a 470mm equivalent lens giving a field-of-view of 4.4°. This photo I don't know the distance but the 1500mm equivalent lens has a tiny field-of-view of 1.4°. The difference of low height + distance here means we have a long section of foreground compressed into a thin slice. It wouldn't I believe, look a whole lot different with a 500mm lens vs 1500mm equivalent. The effect is largely due to angle-of-view: the linked websites show many very similar images shot with fairly standard telephoto lenses.
But importantly, I don't think it is healthy to negatively single out a person by name, as though this is "John Harrison's blurred forgrounds". Reviewers here might personally associated that look with one photographer, but that says more about reviewers at FPC and their experiences and observations than it does about that photographer. And negative comments like these make advanced photographers despair and decide to contribute to websites where their skill and talents are appreciated, not questioned. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Following the discussion Cart links to I had a long offline discussion with JJH and totally accepted the results produced by his lens. I vote to promote many of his excellent images. I just don't like the blurred foreground look, though I have not opposed this nomination. And, I have never pretended to be an advanced photographer, Colin. I claim to be a wildlife portrait photographer, nothing more. Oh! in case you wondered, Colin's "No disrespect" means "Disrespect" these days. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Kobylá nad Vidnavkou (Jungferndorf) - small chapel.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2021 at 14:45:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:تاق‌بستان.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2021 at 10:44:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taq-e_Bostan
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Iran
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by AliHeidari2 - uploaded by AliHeidari2 - nominated by POS78 -- POS78 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- POS78 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose can't support due to lack of clarity of composition. This image would have been better taken at a different time without the shadow covering part of the door. I would also prefer a more direct angle, more like this. Buidhe (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above RolfHill (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe if it were just the archways, the trees and the reflections. As it is it asks us to take in a lot. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me personally this is an instructive photo, so thank you for pointing it out. There is definitely an FP in the scenery, but this photo has not revealed it; and I have spent some time thinking about the lessons this photo teaches me. The most important point has been stated by Daniel: to limit the composition to the most photogenic items, namely trees, archways, and reflections; and it would probably be necessary to include the whole reflections of the trees (instead of the upper part of the rocks). From the point of view of a historian or archeologist, the relief and the little arch at the right are important, but for a photographer the trees and the reflections are more important because together with the two big archways they form a solid, photogenic composition. In addition, sharpness and level of details are not perfect (a better lens and f/5.6 or f/8 would have helped). The brightness, gradation, and colour balance are unlucky, too, but these points could probably be fixed completely if we had access to a raw image file. --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Pasola.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2021 at 09:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting but the background is just too busy RolfHill (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed the background is busy, but IMO those spectators add something to the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Life... -- Karelj (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like the others, I think the background is just part of it all and I love the action --Kritzolina (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the background is not ideal, but it's a compelling image, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:TR Izmir asv2020-02 img58 Salepçioğlu Mosque.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2021 at 20:46:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome interior of Izmir Salepçioğlu Mosque

File:Soffione - Pappo di dente di Leone, infruttescenza di Tarassaco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2021 at 16:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dandelion Pappus, Dandelion infructescence
  • That's not a rule. It would rather depend on the plant and the composition. --Cart (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good but not exceptional, as such a common subject would require to be a Featured Picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above --Commonists 12:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too ordinary, quality issues (overexposure, missing detail) RolfHill (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background too busy, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per the others. For a subject like this, I would except much more detail for a FP. --Domob (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Meridian Idaho Temple.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2021 at 20:05:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Meridian, Idaho.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#United States
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think summer is unfortunately not the ideal time to photograph a south-facing building. If it's too close to sunrise/sunset, then the facade will be in shadow. If it's too close to noon, then the lighting and sky will be boring. I think you tried to straddle the difference by shooting at 4 PM, but it could have been much better any other season. -- King of ♥ 21:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. There's just enough contrast, and the bright, simple sky brings out the whiteness and shapes of the facade. Very well-composed, too. It probably wouldn't have worked without the contrast of the gardens, though. My father had a book of very good pictures of Mormon temples from I guess the early 20th century, and this photo reminds me of photos in that book. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's something else that's a little harder to put my hands on: There's a kind of metaphorical purity to this photo. If you look up photos of LDS temples, most of them are white. I feel like this light accentuates the whiteness, and I don't have to be (and am not) LDS in order to appreciate the statement being made by the setting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually, that "ethereal" mood is the point :-) You describe it very well. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good EV Buidhe (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An interesting building (I don't share their ideas), high key photography, a very appealing contrast between the facade and the green vegetation. --Cayambe (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting seems wrong to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Frank and Cayambe --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's not the most perfect moment of the day and year to take this photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothig special for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely a QI, but I agree with King of Hearts that this light is not right. Actually, like a lot of Mormon temples, this would work a lot better with a deep blue sky behind it ... I remember seeing the Idaho Falls temple from across the Snake River on the afternoon of the eclipse with IMO just the right lighting and getting a few shots of it ... I haven't yet been able to process them but I see FP potential. Daniel Case (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above RolfHill (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Our Lady church in Marvejols 25.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2021 at 13:45:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the Our Lady church in Marvejols, Lozère, France

File:Lac de Montriond 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2021 at 13:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lac de Montriond in commune of Montriond (Roc d'Enfer in the background), Haute-Savoie, France

File:Mohammad Helal Ali امامزاده هلال ابن علی 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 20:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hilal ibn Ali Shrine
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Iran
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mostafameraji - uploaded by Mostafameraji - nominated by Shiasun -- Shiasun (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Shiasun (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An excellent image under difficult lighting conditions. Would make the first night-time image in the gallery Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Iran. @Mostafameraji: Will be useful to add an English translation of the Description and Caption. --Tagooty (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Travia, Saeed Toosi a prominent Qur'an reciter and alleged child sexual abuser is seen in this picture! --Gnosis (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As things stand, I'm at least slightly inclined to oppose, in spite of the great content, because of photo quality issues. In particular, the magenta chromatic aberration on the near right minar should be eliminated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective correction is not done properly, leaving the central verticals and all the horizontal tilted. The magenta/green CA is also prominent on all the books. --Cart (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wonderful view, strong CAs in many places. (Yes, I am the 3rd one saying this, but the CAs really spoil the photo IMHO, sorry, this is why I repeat it.) --Aristeas (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed I have removed as much CA as possible (automatic and manual), you have to have a very light touch because of all the lights in green and magenta (corrections are prone to spill over), and tweaked the perspective. Made in two steps in case someone thinks these are too big adjustments for overwrites, please revert if you think so. But now I think the photo is good to go. You may need to refresh (F5) your cache. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this version. It isn't perfect but this view during a broadcast ceremony is of much higher interest than an ordinary view of this mosque would be, and the mosque itself is quite impressive to begin with and unusual for being open-air. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Commonists 19:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ermell (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not feel comfortable voting for a picture of a child abuser. Saeed Toosi has the main role in this picture and all these people are listening to him, so his presence in the picture cannot be considered small and minor. I do not even need to look at Wikimedia policies, everything related to child sexual abuse is a red line. --IamMM (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @W.carter: Thank you very much for your great effort to rescue the photo from the CAs! – I understand and respect IamMM’s reservations, but for my simple European eyes this is mainly a photo of the illuminated mosque and of the praying congregation, so (in all respect) I think it is venial to promote the photo even from an ethical point of view. --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Aristeas: I do not insist that others agree with this, and I also confirm that this image has no other problem to be chosen than the presence of Mr. Toosi himself. But at the same time, I still can not accept that having technical standards is a good/enough reason to consciously place a photo of a famous child sexual abuser on the main page of Commons. In response to your argument , if my Persian eyes saw a eye-catching and impressive photograph of a historic European church in which a priest accused of similar acts was lecturing, I would still strongly oppose it regardless of cultural or geographical differences.--IamMM (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The main point of FPs is not to place them on the main page of Commons, that is a side-effect for very few FPs. There are always FPs not chosen for POTD on the main page for a number of reasons. Massmurderers, other offenders and their doings seldom make it to POTD. FPs exist so that we can get good pictures for all the different parts of the WikiProjects. Neutral Wikipedias are striving to be as good encyclopedias as possible, and it would look rather strange if only articles of pleasant things had good photos, while offensive stuff had bad or no pictures at all. I have supported many images of things I don't like or agree with here, simply for the sake of the encyclopedic value of them. If you have an ethical problem with any image, I think it would be better if you voiced your concern at POTD instead. --Cart (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have added some English to the photo's description. Perhaps someone speaking Arabic can tweak it for the better. I also noted that Mr. Toosi is present in the photo. Information like that is helpful if you want to state why a photo might not be appropriate for POTD. --Cart (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (You mean someone who can read Farsi.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That works too. There are descriptions in both Arabic and Farsi on the file page. You can see that if you open the 'edit' window. I just picked the language that was entered first. --Cart (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see this. Silly remark by me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @IamMM: I completely understand and respect your point of view! I am so sorry, my “European eyes” was liable to be misunderstood. I did not want to assert any cultural or geographical differences regarding crime, justice, or ethics – child sexual abuse is a terrible crime, period, and should be regarded and prosecuted everywhere on the world regardless of cultural or geographical differences. What I wanted to say was just that simple people like me who are not familar with the distinctive features of Islamic prayer and especially not with the sophisticated practice of Qur’an recitation, do not even see that this photo emphasizes or features any special person -- all I see are many persons praying together in an illuminated, beautiful mosque. But I get the feeling that the more I write the more I am getting in trouble. I just wanted to review a photo, I did not want to harm anybody, I did not want to defend child sexual abuse or any other crime, and it’s probably best that I stop to write anything here before I get blocked or prosecucted. Should I leave Commons? Sorry to all of you and all the best to all of you. --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • FYI. I hope you are satisfied now. --Aristeas (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you, IamMM, for your clarification (answered there) and sorry to all of you for the confusion. Probably this was a series of entangled misunderstandings. Sorry again and all the best. --Aristeas (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • According to the Wikipedia article Saeed Toosi was acquitted, therefore the comments of IamMM could be considered libel. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The story of how Saeed Toosi was acquitted and the role of the Iranian leader in preventing the trial is one of the reasons for the sensitivity of the case.[1][2] Following the Iranian judiciary's refusal to hear the case, the families of the child victims went to the Turkish judiciary to pursue their complaint, and legal action is ongoing (according to MP Mahmoud Sadeghi). The English Wiki article is inaccurate in this regard.--IamMM (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Drama, drama... Seriously, as a neutral Wikipedian I might support even a picture of Marc Dutroux, if we got a featurable one (yet by now there is no photo whatsoever, alas). So I'm going to judge as a neutral Wikipedian actually should judge. The picture is not bad, but the sharpness is maybe just barely OK for QI, the composition with the barely cropped towers is average, there is vignetting, and the green lighting does not really add something to the Blue hour mood, as it probably should do. --A.Savin 11:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand IamMM's objections, but you can barely distinguish Toosi in the middle of the image. I don't really see this image as promoting him. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 08:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per A.Savin but the light is good and the scenery, too RolfHill (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:شهر قم از نگاه دوربین عکاسی - تصاویر باکیفیت از قم - کلانشهرهای ایران- مصطفی معراجی - والپیپر 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 20:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iranian Islamic architecture used in Imam Hasan al-Askari Mosque Minarets


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File:שקיעה סתווית מעל מבצר עתלית.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 19:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

שקיעה סתווית מעל מבצר עתלית.jpg
  • I might take a shot like this, but I wouldn't nominate it for FP. The composition is too unbalanced for such an ordinary scene. --Cart (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Nope, sorry. The photographer is trying to cramp too much into the compo, the anchor is one item too much. Also it is taken with slightly bad timing and too close, making the person dark and big (had he been turned slightly to the sun to catch some light, it would have been better) and his reflection in the sand is cut at the head, more or less crop would be better. Imagine this photoshopped version :-) --Cart (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cropped too tightly on the right. We have better FPs of boats during sunset Buidhe (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Buidhe RolfHill (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support After some thought, I think the qualities suffice for an FP. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)