Commons:Featured picture candidates

Other featured candidates:

Media 

Skip to current 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.

Skip to: Add a nomination Guidelines for evaluating photographs Current candidates Delisting a featured picture Current delisting candidates Rules Contents

Formal things Nominating Guidelines for nominators Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates: Scope – In addition to falling within the Commons scope, candidates must be static two-dimensional images. All other types of files should be nominated at Commons:Featured media candidates. Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses. Resolution – Raster images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. This does not apply to vector graphics (SVGs). Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information. Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful. General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates. For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful color adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison. Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable. Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, 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: Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy. Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art. Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject. Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards. Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file 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 On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field. Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp. Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element. Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image. Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head). Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph. Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF. On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc. Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects. Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon. Color is important. Over saturated colors are not good. Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch. Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image. Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side. Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales. Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or color AND texture, etc. Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition. Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations … You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types: Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist. A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same). A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes. A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that). Simple tutorial for new users Tutorial: Nominate on COM:FPC How to nominate in 8 simple steps STEP 1 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 7 STEP 8 STEP 8 (last step) NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you. Adding a new nomination If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2 All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination". Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page. Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}} 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: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~. 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 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: {{Support}} ( Support), {{Oppose}} ( Oppose), {{Neutral}} ( Neutral), {{Comment}} ( Comment), {{Info}} ( Info), {{Question}} ( Question), {{Request}} ( Request). You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: No reason "I don't like it" and other empty assessments "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture {{Delist}}  Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore. This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as a FP. {{Delistandreplace}}  Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement. If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include: Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader); A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page); Your reasons for nominating the image and your username. After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy General rules The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum. Featuring and delisting rules A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions: Appropriate license (of course) At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page. The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between 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 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 To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished Basic list of photography-related terms Quality image candidates Valued image candidates Photo challenge Photography critiques Help:Scanning

Table of contents

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity). Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates

File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 20:23:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 15:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Gebarsten bloemknop van een Kogellook (Allium sphaerocephalon) 15-05-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gebarsten bloemknop van een Kogellook (Allium sphaerocephalon) 15-05-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 11:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:New Road Zanskar Sumdo Lahaul Oct20 D72 18201.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New Road Zanskar Sumdo Lahaul Oct20 D72 18201.jpg

• 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)

•  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)

•  Support --Tagooty (talk) 01:55, 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

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 06:32:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:JudgeMagazine19May1894 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:JudgeMagazine19May1894

• 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

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 19:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, Quebéc, Canada 07.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, Quebéc, Canada 07.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 18:53:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Alcea rosea 2022 G1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alcea rosea 2022 G1.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 08:49:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Reflexos no Covão d'Ametade.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflexos no Covão d'Ametade.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 05:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:China-Schanghai-Jade Buddha-Temple-5176573.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:China-Schanghai-Jade Buddha-Temple-5176573.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 01:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Brahminy kite (Haliastur indus), Kuakata Eco-Park.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brahminy kite (Haliastur indus), Kuakata Eco-Park.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 19:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Салтыковский лесопарк 57.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Салтыковский лесопарк 57.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 17:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2022-06-17 ALBA Berlin gegen FC Bayern München (Basketball-Bundesliga 2021-22) by Sandro Halank–068.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2022-06-17 ALBA Berlin gegen FC Bayern München (Basketball-Bundesliga 2021-22) by Sandro Halank–068.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 15:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Palazzo Barberini May 2022-2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palazzo Barberini May 2022-2.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 14:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:S. Pietro May 2022-15.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:S. Pietro May 2022-15.jpg

• 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)

Vote by User:Benh that forgot to sign --Wilfredor (talk) 19:11, 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

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 08:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant hawkmoth (Deilephila elpenor) male.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant hawkmoth (Deilephila elpenor) male.jpg

• 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)
•  Weak oppose 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)

• 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

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 15:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 

  Altar with open wings

• 

  Altar with closed wings

• 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)

  One remark from my side: The wings are closed during Lent, and then opened from Easter on for the rest of the year. The decoration of the altar is also according to this (e.g. purple color during Lent). Uoaei1 (talk) 18:17, 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

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 15:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:বাংলাদেশের অপরূপ রূপ.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:বাংলাদেশের অপরূপ রূপ.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 10:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:491 BC - 1902 AD - A Long Time Between Drinks.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:491 BC - 1902 AD - A Long Time Between Drinks.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 09:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Striped albatross (Appias olferna olferna) female underside with shield bug.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Striped albatross (Appias olferna olferna) female underside with shield bug.jpg

• 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

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 06:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 

  Side view

• 

  Top view

• 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

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 19:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Gilbweiderich (Lysimachia punctata) Blüte Focus stacked-20220607-RM-163906.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gilbweiderich (Lysimachia punctata) Blüte Focus stacked-20220607-RM-163906.jpg

847

847

706

2203

6003

4518

dark halo around the blossom -- Wolf im Wald 00:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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)
  •  Info The flower is in full sunlight, the background in shade. I can only take pictures like this indoors because it is almost always too windy outside and stacking doesn't work well. --Ermell (talk) 22:02, 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)
  •  Comment Nice idea. However, I would like to point out that the plant tends to spread a lot.--Ermell (talk) 22:26, 5 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)
  •  Info If I look closely, I can see the dark area. But I feel that this hardly disturbs the overall impression. A change would not significantly improve the image. Thank you for the review anyaway. --Ermell (talk) 22:22, 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

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 17:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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. —Bruce1ee^talk 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

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 15:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Neillia affinis, trosspirea. 23-05-2022 (actm.).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neillia affinis, trosspirea. 23-05-2022 (actm.).jpg

3357

780

150

230

4995

2810

small stacking error

1459

1820

619

550

4995

2810

stacking error on blurred flower

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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)
•  Neutral 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)

•  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

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 15:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sunrise in Shkorpilovtsi, Bulgaria 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunrise in Shkorpilovtsi, Bulgaria 01.jpg

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 14:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pez ángel de barra amarilla (Pomacanthus maculosus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-26, DD 138.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pez ángel de barra amarilla (Pomacanthus maculosus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-26, DD 138.jpg

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 21:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fábio Maldonado 2022.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fábio Maldonado 2022.jpg

• 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)

  But probably theoretically, in good light, a photo from a phone can be a "Featured picture", don't you think? JukoFF (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sure that’s possible, yet I think this one isn’t. --Kreuzschnabel 13:04, 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)

  Category added. Thanks for the tip! JukoFF (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose as per others above. Yann (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 13:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Coral (Dipsastraea favus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 105.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coral (Dipsastraea favus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 105.jpg

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 06:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg

137

775

3500

3591

3648

5472

I’d prefer a crop like this, maybe even smaller. --Kreuzschnabel 20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2022 at 18:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF B 81500 Embrun - Montdauphin-Guillestre.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF B 81500 Embrun - Montdauphin-Guillestre.jpg

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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 —Bruce1ee^talk 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

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 22:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Istanbul asv2021-11 img68 Aynalıkavak Pavilion.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Istanbul asv2021-11 img68 Aynalıkavak Pavilion.jpg

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 12:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Avoriaz (8).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Avoriaz (8).jpg

• 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)
•  Neutral 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)

•  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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 12:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Town hall of Aosta (3).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Town hall of Aosta (3).jpg

• 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, but I 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

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.

Featured picture candidates/File:Angel glacier and a rock rabbit enjoying the view. (50891599841).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angel glacier and a rock rabbit enjoying the view. (50891599841).jpg

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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)
  • I think it's already obvious from the discussion. Tomer T (talk) 11:10, 28 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)
  • OK, giving this another chance, and unwithdrawing. Tomer T (talk) 11:10, 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

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.

Featured picture candidates/File:Arun Yogiraj Statues Left View Mysore Railway Station Apr22 A7C 01914.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arun Yogiraj Statues Left View Mysore Railway Station Apr22 A7C 01914.jpg

• 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)
•  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

•  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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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

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.

Featured picture candidates/File:Shadows (33902546238).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shadows (33902546238).jpg

• 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 32^KB ⚡ ^{(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)

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)

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

The bot

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

Any experienced user may close requests.

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   featured or not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. If it is featured:
   • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate 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.
5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2022), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
   '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
   (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
   delisted or not delisted
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2022.
4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
   1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
   2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. 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).
      2. 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).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
   3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
5. 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

1. 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=--~~~~}}

2. 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 ===
3. Save your edit.
4. 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.