Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal things[edit]Nominating[edit]Guidelines for nominators[edit]Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs[edit]On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio[edit]Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations[edit]If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new users[edit]Adding a new nomination[edit]If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Strongly recommended: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. Voting[edit]Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy[edit]General rules[edit]
Featuring and delisting rules[edit]A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite[edit]Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also[edit]
|
Table of contents[edit]
Featured picture candidates[edit]
File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 20:23:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Thure de Thulstrup - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Excellent. I'll bet you were aiming for a July 4 nomination. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would've been nice, but there was no way I was doing this in a day, even with a head start. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Gebarsten bloemknop van een Kogellook (Allium sphaerocephalon) 15-05-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 15:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info Cracked flower bud of a Allium sphaerocephalon. Focus stack of 17 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This is not very sharp and the background is blotchy. I think the benchmark is higher than this. Compare the definition on George's Alceanomination and the shortcomings (probably of the camera) become obvious. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:New Road Zanskar Sumdo Lahaul Oct20 D72 18201.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 11:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Timothy Gonsalves - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This scene could be an FP, but in this one the light is just too harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Not a bad composition indeed, but the harsh light mentioned by Daniel spoils it, plus some overexposure leading to washed-out and blueish colours. This might be saved in postprocessing. After five minutes with the JPG in GIMP, I came up with this here (downscaled to ⅓ without losing much detail), but that work should be done from the raw file of course. Furthermore, there’s sharpness. The focus is on the very foreground, on the bottom edge (why?) which is clearly not a winning point, and defocused scenery cannot be sharpened by software. No, never. --Kreuzschnabel 17:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Question Is someone trying to offer the other version as an alternate? I would vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please don’t, at least not yet :) my suggestion is meant to be an example to outline what I meant by overexposure and washed-out colours. It has been done from the JPG as 2nd generation (so artifacts are building up) instead of the raw file, and considerably downscaled (to show the poor detail in the nomination – 24 mpix downscaled into 2⅔ mpix with no loss to speak of). If the raw file is still with us, I’d like to have a try on it, but it won’t help the sharpness issue. I would oppose as well I’m afraid. --Kreuzschnabel 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps @Tagooty: can help, since they took this picture. I do like the improved version, but the resolution is way too reduced (which, I understand, is because it’s only meant to demonstrate the desired improvements). UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please don’t, at least not yet :) my suggestion is meant to be an example to outline what I meant by overexposure and washed-out colours. It has been done from the JPG as 2nd generation (so artifacts are building up) instead of the raw file, and considerably downscaled (to show the poor detail in the nomination – 24 mpix downscaled into 2⅔ mpix with no loss to speak of). If the raw file is still with us, I’d like to have a try on it, but it won’t help the sharpness issue. I would oppose as well I’m afraid. --Kreuzschnabel 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Done @Kreuzschnabel, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and UnpetitproleX: Please review the improved version, with reduced exposure and other improvements. In this high altitude (12,000') semi-desert the mid-day light is naturally harsh. I find the scene is fairly sharp from the foreground to the distant ridgeline. --Tagooty (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Please make sure there's only one image we can see; otherwise, I don't know what I'm supposed to judge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Tagooty: It is a little better, in that I don't reflexively squint when I look at it. But Kreuzchnabel did this by downsampling heavily, and that is generally met with disapproval here, as his comment indicates. I am not changing my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek: Sorry for the confusion. I had uploaded a new version of the original image. To avoid confusion, I've modified Kreuzchnabel's comment to not display his image (his link is retained). Please click on the original image for the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Tagooty: In order to avoid confusion (we’re having votings on different images mixed up now), and to not meddle with others’ comments (which is not considered good practice here), it would be much wiser to withdraw this nomination and place a new one for the reworked image. And it would be still a bit wiser to upload the reworked image under a new name so the nomination subpages archived refer to their respective image versions in question. --Kreuzschnabel 07:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:JudgeMagazine19May1894.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 06:32:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Judge [Bernhard Gilliam] - uploaded by PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC) - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Info Slightly modified to remove the Google watermark.
Support -- Testing the waters to see if people think the Judge covers are high-quality enough for FP status. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Technical quality is OK (though not astonishing), but the whole thing is kind of pointless as it is now. Political caricatures are unlike most other kinds of visual arts in that they not only benefit from but essentially require knowledge about their context. I don't expect the description to explain the whole situation to me (although that would be great). But it should at least tell me who these people are supposed to be and what the general context is. I shouldn't have to use Google to find out about the en:Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act. --El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment I agree with this. A great image but not a huge photo, but regardless of whether it's nominated here or at COM:VIC, background information is needed in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also be happier if it wasn't relatively low resolution, and had a more sensitive adjustment. It feels like autolevels. This is little more than a fat joke at Taft's expense, and I'd want to tweak the colours, but it's better reproduction quality. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- This might also merit consideration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, Quebéc, Canada 07.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 19:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Marcus Dubois - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Wilfredor -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Alcea rosea 2022 G1.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 18:53:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Malvaceae
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Beautiful! --Yann (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support I'm not a fan of 'studio' black backgrounds, but this is extraordinarily well executed. Amazing quality considering the level of camera used. If this is a focus stack, please let us know the processing software George. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's not a focus stack, just one f/11 shot, the best in the series. The black background is the night sky. A flash with a white diffuser was used. -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent. So much better than some of our focus-stacked flower nominations. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Lotje (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Reflexos no Covão d'Ametade.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 08:49:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info created & uploaded by RaquelRosa7 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support I find this really beautiful, a winterscape that nevertheless feels lush from all those twigs. The circle really makes the composition satisfying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment The 'circle' is great, but not the trees in left foreground. Could remove red jacket/whatever? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:China-Schanghai-Jade Buddha-Temple-5176573.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 05:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support The concentration of the worshipper makes the photo special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the nom IamMM.--Ermell (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Brahminy kite (Haliastur indus), Kuakata Eco-Park.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 01:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by আফতাবুজ্জামান -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Really great light. It's a shame the wing does not fit into the frame -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile. Could be sharper, too, for FP - even birds in flight that we've been featuring recently are sharper than this. Lovely colors, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I really like the eagle and the light, but there are compression artefacts, especially in the bokeh. Also, I fully agree with Ikan Kekek and Basile Morin. -- Wolf im Wald 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The crop would be enough reason to oppose, plus quality issues. Though it really is a nice shot, it’s by no means up to our standards in birds. Please have a look at some recently featured ones in comparison. --Kreuzschnabel 17:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Салтыковский лесопарк 57.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 19:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info created by Ulaisaeva - uploaded by Ulaisaeva - nominated by Ulaisaeva -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The depth of field is too shallow in my view, compared to the other pictures of flowers we usually promote. Metadata missing. The adding of a description in English would be good. And in all languages, the name of the flower clearly mentioned. The file name is very broad -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing excptional on this flowers image for the FP nominatiom, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per others. Look at the fantastic focus-stacked flowers we've been featuring lately. That's part of your competition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
File:2022-06-17 ALBA Berlin gegen FC Bayern München (Basketball-Bundesliga 2021-22) by Sandro Halank–068.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 17:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Other team sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Sandro Halank (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Exciting! You feel like you're right in front of them and they're coming toward you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Very dynamic -- Karelj (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Dynamic, but focus missed on man with the ball. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Palazzo Barberini May 2022-2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 15:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Italy
Info View through a window from the interior of Palazzo Barberini, Rome. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Ok but not great, in my view. The silhouette of the structure is a geometric pattern that is very common in all big buildings of Europe. So what's through the window? Mainly a flat gradient of sky, and at the bottom an ordinary landscape. I miss the wow factor here -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing excptional on this window image for the FP nominatiom, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I have to agree with the others, especially in regard to the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
File:S. Pietro May 2022-15.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 14:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
Info Dome of St Peter's Cathedral, Vatican City, Rome. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Wonderful capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Beautiful composition, large file, but there is some color noise at full size. Is there anything you can do about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Info Yes, I could. But reducing color noise will also affect detail. What is the least of the evils? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know, but is either way an FP? That's the question we have to think about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment I don't study these ceiling images, but this looks soft. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support Big pro: Normally we try to photograph such domes symetrically (looking exactly upwards); often this is not possible and a sloped view is all we can achieve, but most times the result is not appealing. You have managed to get a very attractive composition from the slightly sloped view – bravo! In addition the crepuscular rays (?) from the dome windows add a nice effect. – Neutral: Personally I would not mind the little noise: Given the resolution it is low, it is natural photon noise, and I like a little bit of noise much better than a mushy picture resulting from strong noise reduction. But you could try to increase the colour noise removal only (without increasing the monotone noise removal); this could give a cleaner result without reducing details. – Problems: The level of details could be higher; theoretically it should be possible to get more of the dome sharp at 24mm and f/8 (maybe the lens has got some field curvature which counteracts this?). I am not sure about the white balance and the colours – it seems too bluish/greenish. And it’s natural that some of the windows are blown, but nevertheless it would be better if the bars would be visible in all/most windows. --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Changed from neutral to WS after reading my own evaluation again. --Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Well executed, good time of day, focused and striking composition. Noise and sharpness could be improved with Topaz or other artificial intelligence tools that add false details, I prefer this type of noisy image because in the noise there is also important information that should not be removed or changed by details generated by an AI.--Wilfredor (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutral I don't know. The quality is barely OK. But I understand tripods are forbidden there (I photographed it myself, and it doesn't look good). The feature is the the light beam. I love them generally speaking, but I only wished this was going down rather than up. As it is, it's much less mystical. God reaches us, not some green guys in space. - 16:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak
Oppose: I like this photo, and it's a notable contribution, but is it truly exceptional? I have doubts about that, so I oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Elephant hawkmoth (Deilephila elpenor) male.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 08:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Sphingidae (Hawk Moths)
Info The UK's most colourful large moth. Focus stack of 26 images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support When I saw this on QIC, I expected to see this excellent portrait here. Is its eye closed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, and no. Moths don't have eyelids. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Consistent focus stacking, providing a high level of detail. Attractive colors. Still the light is a bit harsh, and the shadow unappealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Beautiful subject, lovely colors, excellent level of detail and I don't really mind the shadows. But a few more frames would have been necessary to get the whole animal sharp: The edge of the front wing is very soft. It does seem to merge in with the background, which really messes with my depth perception. The repetitive wavy patterns in the background are weird too. Surely that must be an artifact of the stacking process - not necessarily the dark-bright-dark |||||-like pattern, but at least the vvvvv-like component on top of that? I'd be more lenient with a smaller subject, as I know optics can become quite tricky in the microscopic range, but judging this against other candidates in the 1:1-ish range, I'm tending towards opposing. Still on the edge, though, because it does have a lot of wow - might reconsider later ... --El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Weak oppose
- Actually El Grafo the background is a comfy wicker chair! I had no time to move it out of the way as the moth moved. I had the camera's focus-bracketing image count set at 40. With a live animal in the open air, even that's a large number. I normally use 15 or 20. Would have needed around 70 to get nearest wing in focus, but only if I could have managed to get the camera to focus on the wing leading edge. For better or worse, I chose to focus on the front leg. Camera was on a monopod, braced against a wooden chair. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh dear, thanks, that explains the pattern. Who would have thought! And if there's any part on that animal that can get away with being unsharp, it's exactly that wing. Oppose struck. I'll think about a support, but I'm not sure I can get over those waves. Knowing what they are helps, but I still find them distracting. --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Very impressive. (IMHO the legs are a bit overexposed and oversharpened, but this does not make a difference because of the overall quality and effect.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Basile and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support Nice work and interesting subject, but the noisy background is a little bit distractiong IMO. -- Wolf im Wald 00:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hochaltar der Pfarrkirche Pfarrwerfen[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 15:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info High altar at the parish church St. Cyriak in Pfarrwerfen, federal state of Salzburg, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Excellent, allows to study the high altar in all details. – I wonder if it would be better to crop both photos in a similar manner to improve the set effect. But I support it in any case. --Aristeas (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Question Does this qualify as a set with different altar decoration etc? Also, do we not need same PoV, perspective, lens, crop? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Great. If you feel inclined, you could further increase the value of these photos by describing all the scenes in your file descriptions. I was able to identify most of them, but that's because I've learned about them by viewing many depictions in Europe and wanting to know what I was looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Ikan Kekek, thanks for your hint. There are individual images for each scene available, and I have put them as annotations together with the description. Uoaei1 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's wonderful! Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’d like to thank you, too! Now this is one of the (or just: the) best-explained altarpiece photo we have on Commons. --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- One of the panels now has an early depiction of Speedos! ps I think the 'wings' are known as door panels in English. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutral Quality is good but since the topic is more the panels paintings than the stainglasses, maybe the framing can be tighter and more focused on the former. I would also try to keep the same framing on a set, even if it's at the cost of some wasted space on the closed panels version. - Benh (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:বাংলাদেশের অপরূপ রূপ.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 15:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
Info created and uploaded by Sultan Ahmed Niloy - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Beautiful composition with color noise that feels like grain to me. What accounts for the unusual brown/green color in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's certainly something going on in the atmosphere. Warm early morning light hitting misty air could explain the orange/brownish component. Depending on geography, it could also be smog or a sand storm. If the camera is expecting something else and tries to compensate (EXIF says white balance was set to auto), I suppose that might lead to the slight green-ish tint? --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I thought of a sandstorm. It would be great to hear from the photographer. It's unfortunate that he hasn't been here since November, 2020. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Ezarateesteban 23:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment The power cables are unfortunate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Regretful oppose. I don't mind the power lines, and I love the mood, but the graininess and color noise are incompatible with FP status. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:491 BC - 1902 AD - A Long Time Between Drinks.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 10:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Puck [Samuel D. Ehrhart] - uploaded by Cplakidas - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- No, Joseph Keppler isn't paying me from beyond the grave to preserve his magazine's legacy. There just happens to be a dearth of featured pictures in the "Magazine and newspaper illustrations in color" category and a whole lot of high-quality Puck covers that have gone unnoticed for years! PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Question Should this be restored Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- As per usual with the Puck covers I think it's already FP quality as-is, but I will support delisting & replacing if a restoration is done. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Happy to support on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Funny and acceptable quality. It will be even better with restoration, maybe Adam Cuerden can help with this. -- IamMM (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I can work to the schedule of an FP nomination. PDMCU says they're fine with D&Rs, so I'll try to get to them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- h Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment I think this needs more context in the description to be appreciated. How was the relationship between the two countries at the time this came out? Does this refer to any event in particular? It's not as bad as with the Judge cover, but it's still quite superficial. --El Grafo (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: I expanded the description a bit (based on Business Insider). The years mentioned in the Business Insider article are not the same as the years mentioned in the source of the image and should be compared with reliable historical sources to reach verifiable information. IamMM (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Striped albatross (Appias olferna olferna) female underside with shield bug.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 09:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info One FP of this genus. Focus stack of four images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Very nice --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Two insects for the price of one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support I like the way the curves of the leaves complement those on the butterfly's wings. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Diprion similis larva[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 06:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Diprionidae_(Conifer_sawflies)
Info Larva body length 29 mm. All by Ivar (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment I think they should be to scale. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment and roughly they are, full reso at same body length. --Ivar (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. The way they are presented at FPC makes them look different sizes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Beautiful and impressive. (At the first glance it may not seem as extremely sharp as some recent FPs of insects, but considering the small size of the larva and that Ivar has not applied strong sharpening etc. in post the quality is IHMO very very good.) --Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas. The more impressive picture on the left, in particular, is quite sharp at 60%, which is still quite big. I'd suggest cropping the top view just a little more on the left, so that the things coming from the stems are fully instead of partially cropped, and it would be fine to make an equivalent crop on the right side so as not to disturb the ratio of distances between the larva and the sides of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment tried the top view crop, but the result is imo not convincing (it gets too narrow). --Ivar (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I support either way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Technically well done, and educative -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support - Benh (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Gilbweiderich (Lysimachia punctata) Blüte Focus stacked-20220607-RM-163906.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 19:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Primulaceae
Info Single flower of a loosestrife (Lysimachia punctata). Focus stack of 24 frames Al by me -- Ermell (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Crisp photo of an interesting subject. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Gorgeous! How come the background is so dark? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support SVeach94 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support It's high on quality, in focus and the subject is centered, it's a Support from me! Mugtheboss (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not possible to vote at this point. --A.Savin 03:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 04:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Light and high level of detail at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Personal footnote: Thank you, Ermell, for this photo! We will be moving to a new flat in the autumn and taking a look at the (small) garden of it I have discovered this flower. I wanted to search for the ID, but thanks to your photo I can say immediately that it must be a Lysimachia punctata. In how many ways FP discussions can be helpful … ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Please remove the dark halo around the left part of the blossom (see image note). I will be happy to support afterwards. :-) -- Wolf im Wald 00:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 17:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created and uploaded by Prasan Shrestha - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Very cool action photo. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 19:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Very atmospheric --Kritzolina (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Nice fog (or mist). These silhouettes tell a story -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Basile Morin and Kritzolina -- IamMM (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Kritzolina and Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Kritzolina. —Bruce1eetalk 07:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support - Benh (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support WOW! Could be POTY finalist... -- Wolf im Wald 00:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful indeed Cmao20 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Neillia affinis, trosspirea. 23-05-2022 (actm.).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 15:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info Flowers of a Neillia affinis. Focus stack of 36 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment I've marked a few stacking errors. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Question In light of these stacking errors is there any way to fix them? Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 18:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. Correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Info I like the red of the flowers and the blur of the back leaf, wonderful work that doesn't need to be re-stacked. All it takes is a detailed retouching to make the photo perfect. I have added a few more notations on the nomination page, or rather supplemented. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. Correction and sophistication. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Thank you very much for your new editing which made the picture perfect. In addition, the gentle darkening of the background creates a brighter, even more pleasing red of the sepals. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful and impressive. (Maybe there are still some minor traces of halos in the background, but the flower itself is very good now.) --Aristeas (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think this can be rescued. Will reconsider if new stack uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
New version uploaded The traces of halos on the left side I have removed as well as possible and uploaded the photo in agreement with the photographer. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Radomianin! Now all traces of halos which I have mentioned above have been fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for uploading an improved version of my photo!--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment improved, but one error is still bothering me (note name: stacking/cloning error). Part of the petal is cloned out, but should be visible. --Ivar (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Done Thank you very much for your note, Ivar. I have carefully reinserted the blurred petal detail from the first file version at the xy coordinates (3400,870). Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support All that work was worth it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I really enjoy your work, Agnes! But I can't support until the stacking errors are fixed. Please see my image note in the right center of the picture. -- Wolf im Wald 00:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Neutral
Done Thank you very much for pointing out this stacking error, Wolf im Wald. I have removed this halo at the xy coordinates (3000,1400) as well as I could. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support some small issues remain, but overall is imo good enough now. --Ivar (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support I think, the current version is okay enough. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Info Dear reviewers @Agnes Monkelbaan, Charlesjsharp, Urban Versis 32, Aristeas, Ikan Kekek, Iifar, Daniel Case, Der Wolf im Wald, Florstein, and GRDN711: The remaining halo issues, mentioned by Ivar, didn't leave me in peace after my workday was over, so I retouched the file again – for the last time. In at least 15 positions I have carefully removed small and larger halo fragments. I'm sorry for the conscientious pinging. I could have done all the retouching work at once but I just didn't have enough time before. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Not sure what you've done but the background is really blotchy; definitely still an oppose from me. Compare this with George's Alcea Rosea nomination and the quality difference is massive. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your comment. If you compare the first version directly with the last version, you can see the differences. The extensive retouching was mostly limited to the halos (stacking errors) around the petals. The artificial background I did not edit. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support The green leaf in the background is a bit unpleasant to me, but overall worthy of FP status. -- IamMM (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support per IamMM -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Sunrise in Shkorpilovtsi, Bulgaria 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 15:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bulgaria
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support I love the setting sun, but is very grainy at pixel level. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The leading lines of the pier converge so slowly that they meet at a point outside of the right edge of the frame, giving the composition an unsettling look. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support IMHO a photo like this one is all about the atmosphere, the soft colours and the shadows, and for me it works well – it’s an impressive melancholic seascape. Regarding the composition I agree that a shorter focal length would have given faster converging lines and therefore a bit more depth and dramatic; but because it’s a quite, melancholic photo I can easily do without dramatic here. --Aristeas (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Ezarateesteban 23:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The structure is boring in my view. Not special, nor particularly interesting. Straight architecture. The sky is flat. Not clouds, no texture. The colors are not exceptional. The sand of the foreground, in the darkness, is unappealing. Overall I see a few ordinary silhouettes in an environment with dull gradients of colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I like the subtleties and shapes in this photo more than Basile does, but I don't see a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I'm glad to see a nominee here from Bulgaria, as my son was born there and we don't really have enough FPs from that country, but this is not going to be one. It's not the composition I mind ... it's a great mood and would be vastly improved by cropping out most of the beach. But technically it is far below FP standard—I would not even have promoted it at QIC. At full-res the pier shows signs of oversharpening, and the magenta CA on the sun is inexcusable in an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Pez ángel de barra amarilla (Pomacanthus maculosus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-26, DD 138.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 14:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)
Info Yellowbar angelfish (Pomacanthus maculosus), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. This marine angelfish is distributed throughout the Persian Gulf, the northwestern Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea south to 19°S. In 2009 it was recorded off the coast of Lebanon in the eastern Mediterranean, probably as a result of Lessepsian migration from the Red Sea through the Suez Canal. Pomacanthus maculosus is found at depths of between 4 and 50 metres (13 and 164 ft). It is a solitary species that lives in sheltered areas, often where there is a mixture of coral and silt. Their diet is dominated by sea sponges and tunicates, although other invertebrates will be eaten opportunistically. The females attain sexual maturity when the reach around 5.5 years of age and a total length of 21.6 centimetres (8.5 in). The maximum longevity is thought to be 36 years old. They are protogynous hermaphrodites and the older females can change sex to become males when there is a shortage of males. The larvae are planktonic. The yellowbar angelfish is occasionally collected for the aquarium trade and in some parts of the Persian Gulf it has been recorded in fish markets. Note: if it becomes FP it would be the first FP of the genus Pomacanthus and the second of the family Pomacanthidae (being the another one this recent FP). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Great! In addition, this fish has a funny face. Yann (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support per Yann :) Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 14:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support - Benh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Fábio Maldonado 2022.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 21:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info The athlete was aware that he was being photographed for Wikipedia) / created by JukoFF - uploaded by JukoFF - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support SVeach94 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Poor quality, sorry. While it’s funny you cannot unsee it’s a phonecam shot, with its heavy noise reduction and loss of detail. Nothing is really sharp, the face is in focus but motion-blurred. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Heterogeneous background at the upper right corner. Is it the same guy on the t-shirt? Category:Recursion could be used, and the description mention it (see self-reference on Wikipedia). -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as per others above. Yann (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 14:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Regretful oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment On a positive note, the phone camera does have one thing speaking for it. The wide angle lens exaggerates the size of the close fist in relation to the further away head. Normally you wouldn't want that in a portrait, but it makes a lot of sense here. --El Grafo (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Coral (Dipsastraea favus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 105.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 13:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Stony coral (Dipsastraea favus), Red Sea, Ras Muhammad National Park, Egypt. If successful it would be the first FP of the family Merulinidae. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Very nice image. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral not a perfect DOF this time, closest parts are oof. --Ivar (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Sharp and detailed enough for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose good but far from outstanding in my view. Same criticism as my other reviews on similar subjects : simple composition with centered subject. Also like a few of your underwater pics I have reviewe, focus is off and this leads me to think your lens suffers from a backfocus issue. I don't think you can dive, photograph all corals you can and submit them all here. You ought to make some filtering beforehand on your side. - Benh (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Benh, Aristeas To my defense I can say that after having dived in the Red Sea 13 times I've only seen this coral once. Furthermore I find the composition not bad at all. Image the coral reefs like a kind of part lot with tons of cars closed to each other, this coral is standalone and I used a side lighting to show its nice texture. --Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support What are you using to take these high quality underwater shots? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- SHB2000 you can look up the camera an lens in the EXIF data, otherwise I use this case and lighting (13000 lumen). Poco a poco (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak support Not as perfect as some of your other new underwater shots, but still impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The focus here is a little too far back. Not quite as good as the others.--Ermell (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 06:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 [discuter] 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Gzen92 [discuter] 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support I like everything about the image except for the leaves and other things in the water, but that can't really be helped. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 13:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose What I don’t like in the first place is the overexposed cut-off building to the right. Then, it’s the framing. Obviously the photographer was in for the reflection but that don’t really work here, it’s a bit too cluttered overall, and so the portrait orientation looks odd. I’d much prefer a square crop as suggested on the nomination page, and with the camera shifted a bit to the left, the building on the right could be entirely outside the frame. That would give a very much clearer composition. As it is, it’s a bit arbitrary with the cut-off houses on both sides. Besides, it would eliminate "the leaves and other things in the water". --Kreuzschnabel 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral The alternative composition suggested by Kreuz would be excellent and I would suggest (if you, Gzen92, can visit beautiful Colmar again) to try it. But IMHO this does not mean that the composition of the present photo is bad; it is a nice vanishing-point view; I would just crop a little (!) bit at the top and bottom. However the overexposed façades are IMHO a problem. Most digital cameras which I know tend to overexpose the highlights in such a situation (the manufacturers seem to adhere to some outdated ideas about “getting the midtones right”); often it is necessary to underexpose such a scene a bit (maybe by 2/3 steps) in order to preserve the highlights, and then to make the photo brighter again (preserving the highlights) in post-processing. Of course this approach can be difficult with JPEG images, it works better when you take photos in the raw image format. Another problem is the white balance; this could be improved a bit in post, too, especially when working with a raw image file, but it may be even better to take such photos in another season – midday light in June makes such photos often a bit unappealing, the sun is just too high (which results in overexposed bright areas and black shadows) and the light too cold. No offence, just some remarks which I hope to be helpful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I think I'd support the crop ... as it is I find the debris floating in the water at the foreground to be somewhat off-putting, and the crop gets rid of most of it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Thoughtful composition but doesn't really work for me. It feels tense in the middle and nothing much is happening in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Beautiful photo but the light feels a little pale and washed-out for me, and I'm not 100% convinced by the composition per Ikan Cmao20 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:SNCF B 81500 Embrun - Montdauphin-Guillestre.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2022 at 18:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Hautes-Alpes
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support – Ivar (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support The train (with six engines?) is small but it's an attractive scene. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support One of those photos with which I want to decorate a wall in my bedroom. Amazing view. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 21:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Nice view where the train is of course a main element, giving life to the landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Beautiful landscape image. Have tried to add some categories for the landscape; further improvements are very welcome ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Striking composition and colours. --Tagooty (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry to dissent. The train is only so big here, and the landscape itself is not extraordinary, with a very uniform light (which I usually forgive because of the otherwise excellent timing) and I think I could be taken at a better time of the year. I'd like either more snow or more leaves, but not patches of snow and bare trees. - Benh (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Very attractive! --SHB2000 (talk)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Too much unsharpness. And you don't see the train until you look closely or at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, in part per Daniel and Benh. Beautiful scene but not as sharp as usual and the composition is fine but not exceptional to me. The size of the train relative to the picture frame doesn't matter to me, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per others. Good, but not outstanding for me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Istanbul asv2021-11 img68 Aynalıkavak Pavilion.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 22:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
Info Window detail of the Aynalıkavak Pavilion, Hasköy / Istanbul, all by me --A.Savin 22:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 22:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Amazing. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support You really have to ask yourself where painting ends and the real window begins. --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak support per others but it's a little bright. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose A very good quality image, but I don't find it exceptional. --Tagooty (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Nice... --SHB2000 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Tagooty. -- Karelj (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support A little noisy and could be more in focus, but still gets over the line for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Tagooty. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The door looks noisy. DoF issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Tagooty -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Tagooty. --El Grafo (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Avoriaz (8).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 12:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I really like the scenery! Still, I think the picture could benefit from being cropped on the right. There are also technical problems. Unfortunately, some single images of the stitching are blurred, so that the sharpness is very different at various places in the picture. One example for this can be seen on the left side of the town where the trees are in front of the buildings. -- Wolf im Wald 14:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Neutral
Oppose Changed my vote because I clearly prefer the alt version. -- Wolf im Wald 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment Interesting scene but unbeautiful buildings, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral per Tourbasol7. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 18:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I would also crop it by a third on the right (where the trees start). Are the buildings made out of wood? I can't tell, but the whole town certainly looks unusual --Lupe (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Very interesting subject that captured my attention the moment I saw it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support One of the most famous ski resort in France. Also the place of the Avoriaz International Fantastic Film Festival (in French, surprisingly doesn't have an article in English). Yann (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Now that I've seen Wolf im Wald's note on the unsharp area, I can't unsee it, and I think that makes this not an FP, without prejudice to any other argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Green cast -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Cropped version[edit]
Info @Der Wolf im Wald: @Ikan Kekek: @Urban Versis 32: @Lupe: @Aristeas: @Frank Schulenburg: ; cropped version. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment Big improvement, IMO, and much more compelling composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Also OK. Yann (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. And when we classify this as a ‘cityscape’ photo, the cropped version fits better. --Aristeas (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support This version is more pleasing to the viewer, imo. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support I prefer this one, the cropped area seems featureless to me. -- IamMM (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 12:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral I prefer this version but there is the same issue regarding the sharpness. I marked a blurry spot in the image notes. -- Wolf im Wald 12:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose FPs should not have such craft flaws as Wolf points out.--Ermell (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Neither motive nor implementation are outstanding enough. --Milseburg (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I think this suffers from green cast. Weird colours - Benh (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Low contrast, slightly off WB per Benh, and technical flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Now that I've seen Wolf im Wald's note on the unsharp area, I can't unsee it, and I think that makes this not an FP, without prejudice to any other argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Benh -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Town hall of Aosta (3).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 12:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment That's quite a beautiful town hall.
I haven't decided whether I consider this special enough among the photos we've been featuring to support yet, butI did add a thumbnail of it to the Wikivoyage article about Aosta. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Support Well-done blue hour shot with beautiful light and colours. --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Good enough motif and restful composition, so I think it merits a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak support The shadows are a bit distracting but still ok I think.--Ermell (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 13:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 04:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support The is a nicely lit subdued shot for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I do not see here anything special for FP nomination. Just good quality image of not exceptional older building. -- Karelj (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support I like the symmetry here, but I think a slight crop at the bottom is necessary to get rid of whatever object is poking into the frame there. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Beautiful building photographed under perfect light Cmao20 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Angel glacier and a rock rabbit enjoying the view. (50891599841).jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 09:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Alberta
Info Photomontage, created by Bernd Thaller - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Info For those, who doesn't read file description, this is a photomontage. --Ivar (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but for my personal taste this looks too artificial --Kritzolina (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment Just for clarification - I was well aware this was a photomontage and while it is done well technically, the result still looks too artificial to me, even before reading this was a photomontage my first thought was: this animal does not belong there. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my support per others. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 13:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my support -- Wolf im Wald 14:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Tomer T, You should alert voters to the fact that this is a photomontage. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- But someone can vote without reading the discussion. If I like a photo, I don't care what others have said. You do need to flag it in the info section of the nom. It would be better to change the file name. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Per above, --Poco a poco (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Per Charlesjsharp. -- Wolf im Wald 18:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment not sure why you withdrew it, I was about to support for what it is : a good example of photoshop montage (and despite some shortcomings). No one is deceiving anyone here, and a reviewer feels let down, it's only his fault for not reading the description. Benh (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I’m with Benh here. Most Wikimedians (including myself) have a strong devotion on documentary and ‘authentic’ photography; but photomontages are everywhere today (one could even argue that the way smartphones process photos today, taking several shots and rendering a single one from them without any manual control, improving many details by ‘AI’, always results in a kind of uncontrolled photomontage). Therefore even if we see the main focus of Commons in documentary and educative media, we still need also photomontages and need a discourse about them; and having a discourse about photomotages would mean for Commons that we to sort photomontages in special categories (in addition to the topical categories), that we introduce QI and FP (and maybe VI?) criteria for photomontages and apply them. When we stop to decline photomotages per se and instead start to distinguish between (technically) better and worse photomotages, between helpful and malicious photomotages, between photomotages made for political vs. educative vs. … reasons or just for fun, then we will help to enlighten people about the various forms and intentions of photomotages, how to recognize them etc.
What does this mean concretely? Let’s discuss a photo like this one as a photomontage and vote on it on the base of questions like: (i) whether the montage is technically done well or not; (ii) whether the montage was successful or not, i.e. whether it creates some additional wow/fun/eureka effect or not; (iii) whether we can agree that the montage has a ‘good’, i.e. educative or entertaining effect, or does mislead in a dishonest intention. And if we would get the necessary majority of support votes, let’s put the picture into a new gallery page, i.e. not into Places/Natural/Canada, but on a new ‘Photomontages’ gallery page, to make clear that we feature the picture not in spite of it being a photomontage, but exactly as a photomontage.
Sorry for the rant ;–). We can continue this on the talk page, if you want. (But I have already said what I wanted to say, so I will shut up.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Support it's a pretty good, dramatic and fun photo montage. The rabbit is so well blended, even its "ambient light" seems to be from the surrounding. There's even a pretty good cast shadow. Only caveats are some edges (moustache and herbs in the mouth) are noticeable, but no deal breaker in my view. - Benh (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas and Benh. Many thanks for Aristeas whose clear and far-sighted statement makes further explanations superfluous, imo. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose no vegetation nearby that rabbit has in mouth. --Ivar (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Tinker pictures that way does not fascinate me at all, sorry. I had a similar composition featured 3 years ago, fortunately not a fake. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per others.--Ermell (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The fact that the pika is eating vegetation nowhere in evidence in the picture makes this too hard to believe for it to be a good mashup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak support Thank you for giving the picture another chance! Well, evaluating this photomontage roughly according to the ideas stated above leads me to the following result: The original photo of the Angel glacier is good, impressive and more or less on FP level. The photomontage was done well (see Benh’s statement); I see no dishonest intention, but it’s a fun photo montage and one could even say it has got some educational value (it’s an instructive example and would fit nicely into a schoolbook ;–). But personally I think the photomontage does not add much value to the original photo – it’s nice, but not great. Therefore my result is weak support. --Aristeas (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per others Ryan Hodnett (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Per Ikan, and also because the lighting just doesn't work for such a splendid scene. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I find this picture beautiful in a number of ways but the central concept is something of a gimmick to me. Cmao20 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Arun Yogiraj Statues Left View Mysore Railway Station Apr22 A7C 01914.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 08:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
Info "Life is a Journey": Bronze statues of travelers by Arun Yogiraj, Mysore Junction Railway Station, Karnataka, India. Created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Eye-catching poses of travelers, especially the photographer aiming at me. -- Tagooty (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Nice motif and good idea but there are some issues, in descending order: 1. Verticals leaning out. Very prominent with the columns, and would have been easy to avoid here. Can’t be fixed though because of → 2. Too tight crop on the right side, the outstretched arm needs more lead room. 3. Exposure is a bit on the bright side. A very bit. 4. The distracting display in the left background spoils the composition IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 10:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
— Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 13:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Oppose per Kreuzschnabel
Done @Kreuzschnabel and Urban Versis 32: Thanks for the comments. I've reworked the image to fix all 4 issues. Please review the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I like it, but I apologize for pushing you a little from the other side: Why is it OK to remove the green display? That's a normal part of a scene at a railway station. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Done @Ikan Kekek: Good point ... I've restored the green display in the latest version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support I like the new changes. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 18:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support With composition, light etc., this photo makes the sculptures appear true-to-life, I think this is an important achievement. --Aristeas (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Funny photographer photographed, but cluttered background. Very tight crop at the lower left corner. Maybe not the best angle because the child at the right is hidden -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Cluttered background, per Basile and Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Shadows (33902546238).jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 08:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created by a.canvas.of.light - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 13:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support A little grainy, but quite a nice artistic photo. I would be happy to see a print of this photo on the wall of an art gallery, so I think it merits a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support ditto. --Aristeas (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Apparently this picture named "shadows" highlights a huge level of contrast, but the silhouettes are not incredible to me. The stairs are almost black and the dark parts indistinct -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Per Basile Morin. --Tagooty (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Not only per Basile, but despite the grayscale there's still a distressing amount of noise. Also, the pleasing effect of the staircase and wall lines is thrown off by the off-center ceiling and skylight ... I want to reach in and straighten it out. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per other opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak support per Ikan, in spite of the noise. Cmao20 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Fri 01 Jul → Wed 06 Jul Sat 02 Jul → Thu 07 Jul Sun 03 Jul → Fri 08 Jul Mon 04 Jul → Sat 09 Jul Tue 05 Jul → Sun 10 Jul Wed 06 Jul → Mon 11 Jul
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Mon 27 Jun → Wed 06 Jul Tue 28 Jun → Thu 07 Jul Wed 29 Jun → Fri 08 Jul Thu 30 Jun → Sat 09 Jul Fri 01 Jul → Sun 10 Jul Sat 02 Jul → Mon 11 Jul Sun 03 Jul → Tue 12 Jul Mon 04 Jul → Wed 13 Jul Tue 05 Jul → Thu 14 Jul Wed 06 Jul → Fri 15 Jul
Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]
The bot[edit]
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure[edit]
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to an appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2022), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2022.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night shots, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2022), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.