Commons:Featured picture candidates

This project page in other languages:

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 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[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

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 – Images (with the exception of animations and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons.

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[edit]

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

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 hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs[edit]

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

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[edit]

Please nominate sounds at Commons:Featured media candidates.
Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominations[edit]

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

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 series of portraits of different people, even if these people have things in common or the photos were taken for a specific occasion.
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[edit]

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[edit]

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".

Step 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 different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters.

Voting[edit]

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her 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[edit]

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

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[edit]

General rules[edit]

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)
1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
2. 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.)
3. 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[edit]

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[edit]

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.

Table of contents[edit]

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[edit]

File:Pine trees growing on the slope of Cinder Cone.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2020 at 02:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Support outstanding! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:American officer and French partisan crouch behind an auto during a street fight in a French city. - NARA - 531322 - restored by Buidhe.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 20:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by unknown US Army Signal Corps photographer - uploaded by National Archives bot - restored and nominated by Buidhe. High historical value as it is used as the lead image of the article on the French Resistance on wikidata and in several Wikipedia languages (English, Spanish, Czech at minimum), and also the cover of a book (a different version of the image). I have benefitted from Adam Cuerden's helpful comments at the enwiki FPC. -- Buidhe (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Buidhe (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Indeed a striking photograph, and on a somewhat less grim subject than Nazi propaganda. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Tongariro02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 20:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand#Waikato
Info Mt. Ruapehu and Mt. Ngauruhoe viewed from Mt. Tongariro. All by KennyOMG. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Info Gallery fixed. Please remember to also add the section now that FPCBot is doing the sorting, otherwise the image will just be stuck in the unsorted section. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Painted Dunes and Fantastic Lava Beds (upright).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 17:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I was hoping that I might see something from this series here. It really blew me away! --Cart (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Beautiful textures. Would work great as a B&W image as well, but the vibrant green trees in a drab landscape justify the use of colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Erste Frühlinsboten IMG 4059.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 16:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Betulaceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I would have supported, it's nice but there is that disturbing twig in the background crossing the subject. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Regretful Oppose the background is too distracting in my opinion. Buidhe (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Stacks of lobster traps in Norra Grundsund 7.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 11:43:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 13:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I love the composition and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I find this a beautiful composition, too. I'm a little surprised no-one thinks it's "chaotic" or "too busy", though, because it has a very active and complex arabesque, and similarly complex forms have gotten panned here. Maybe the fact that most of it is composed of one kind of rope that's mostly of one color makes it more palatable to more of you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole scene makes me think of a waterfall with swirls and vortexes down in the pond and people tend to find such things beautiful even though they are quite complex. --Cart (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. It's a pretty complex series of flows, though. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support technically excellent and also high wow factor. Buidhe (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Taufliege (Drosophila melanogaster)-20200607-RM-210232.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 10:46:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Lauxaniidae
Info All by me -- Ermell (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Nice composition and good technical job. Not the most exciting subject, but I guess no whales or snow leopards visited the garden. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Very good quality, but what is a "Christening fly"? Can't find on Google. Wikidata translates "Taufliege" into "Drosophilidae" -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Done Sorry that was a translation error. I think that's more correct. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  - Comment Common fruit fly Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Perfect sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support It's really neat to see all these closeups/magnified pictures of insects and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Amazing. Sorry can't mention fruit flies without this antanaclasis popping into my head. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots - Décor Acte II.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 06:44:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Célestin Deshayes - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support lovely restoration job. Buidhe (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Cebuella pygmaea - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 19:54:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Callitrichidae (Marmosets and Tamarins)
Info A nice sharp photo of the pygmy marmoset, the smallest monkey species in the world. It is an endangered species and is found in the western Amazon Basin. created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry but the lighting on this is a bit backwards from what I'd like in a good photo. The brightest and most lit part with white glare from the flash is the least interesting part of the photo, the branch. Then the color of the "fringe fur" (for lack of a better expression) is similar to the background, so the top of the animal kind of fades into the background. --Cart (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose same here. Harsh front flat lighting. Too many of them have passed IMO and I really hope this one doesn't. - Benh (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I get your point, the flash lighting is a little harsh, probably without using flash the ISO needed would have been too high. To me though that would only be a serious problem if it badly misrepresented the colour of the fur, and looking at other images on Google it seems roughly what you'd expect. You are both right, it's just that to me this is mitigated by the high resolution (20mpx with the creature filling most of the frame), the nice angle, and the sharpness and lack of noise at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No. The settings are just wrong here. At ISO 200 anf f/11 explains that dark backgroud and very unappealing flat and cold lighting. It is very common to shot animals at higher ISO and Charles shows that ISO 2500 give good results when processed skillfully. One can surely do better in a relatively controlled environnement. - Benh (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Thanks Cmao20 for the nomination. I agree with you. Zoo photography is a special theme. It is easy to photograph animals in well lit large enclosures. But you have other conditions in those who live in terraria, aquaria or smaller cages, which are completely in shadow. Here you have to use a flash. As many (e.g. fish, mammals) are moving very quickly, you have often not the time to arrange the light in an optimal way. And I think, it is better to make photos of living animals than of taxidermied museum specimens, although there you have the time you need to arrange an optimal lightning. --Llez (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Trinity Church Ceiling, Speyer[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 19:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Ceiling of Trinity Church - Left
Ceiling of Trinity Church - Right

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany
Info Two views of the ceiling of the Dreifaltigkeitskirche (Trinity Church) in Speyer, Germany. This late-Baroque Protestant church (constructed 1701-1717) is considered amongst the finest examples of German baroque, and its ceiling paintings, based on the illustrations in the picture bible of Matthew Merian, are especially splendid. As Aristeas has provided us with two images of equal quality and focussing on opposite sides of the ceiling, I feel that a set is the way to go here. (And yes, I know the views don't absolutely mirror each other, but I think that is a minor quibble and probably impossible to get right anyway - the ceiling is clearly not left/right symmetrical.) Created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Really impressive at full size on my 19-inch monitor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Buidhe (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Indian Rat Snake (Grey and Yellow).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 18:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Colubridae (Colubrids)
Info Indian rat snake. A rare combination and very difficult to get both grey and yellow in same frame. There is a slight amount of motion blur at full size due to the low lighting conditions. Feeling the WOW factor nominating it. - by Mydreamsparrow
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Heads and eyes aren't sharp. Sorry but this is far below minimum requirements for image quality. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Baso. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Justice K. K. Usha.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 17:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info Former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court - nominated by Mydreamsparrow -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Lamppost in the background is distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

CommentThe lamp post is not seriously affecting the picture and I wanted to keep the image natural without any manipulation, that's why I did not remove it King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠. If you think it is seriously affecting the object, I can give a try for removing it but honestly I don't want to do that || Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Would make a good valued image but not sufficiently superlative for FP, in my opinion. Buidhe (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I would have supported this if not for the lamp. Cloning it out particularly seems like cheating to me in a portrait, because it's normal to consider the background before you shoot a portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Cistus (zonneroosjesfamilie.) 14-06-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 15:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Cistaceae
Info Cheerful flower of a Cistus.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Cheerful indeed! Cmao20 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Question Nice photo. About how big is the flower? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer: The diameter of the flower in this photo is ± 40 mm.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Thank you. Impressive sharpness, considering the size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support --Cart (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Chelidonichthys spinosus, Madeira, Portugal, 2019-05-30, DD 18.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 09:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Scorpaenidae_(Scorpionfish)
Info Exemplar of Spiny red gurnard (Chelidonichthys spinosus), Garajau Marine Nature Reserve, Madeira, Portugal. Note: this is not an aquarium image but and underwater shot, of which have very few in Commons. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose A valued image but not FP, which requires wow. Too much gravel in the frame and the subject itself is only 1.5MP. Possibly this camouflage subject works better as television, where the subject appears hidden until it moves. -- Colin (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I've never really understood why people seem to tend to oppose camoflague pictures on Commons. I get Colin's point but for me the wow is in the camouflage itself - so if there were less 'gravel in the frame' it wouldn't be as interesting because we wouldn't see how the camouflage works in context. Quality is again good for an underwater photo. Cmao20 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And per Colin, if it doesn't pass it should definitely be nominated as a VI. Cmao20 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per Cmao. If this fails, probably QI. -- Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Colin. --Ivar (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Estrella espinosa común (Marthasterias glacialis), Madeira, Portugal, 2019-05-31, DD 57.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 09:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Asteroidea
Info Exemplar of Spiny starfish (Marthasterias glacialis), Garajau Marine Nature Reserve, Madeira, Portugal. Note: this is not an aquarium image but and underwater shot, of which have very few in Commons. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think File:Estrella espinosa común (Marthasterias glacialis), Madeira, Portugal, 2019-05-30, DD 03.jpg is better. The contrast and colours are better, the lighting less harsh, and the creature is closer to the plane of focus. Whereas in the nomination, the creature is at about 45° and so the front and rear legs are out of focus even at screen size. I know the nom is higher resolution and the other one could do with a bit of vertical crop. I wonder what Charles could do with it wrt the Topaz AI sharpening from raw? -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment I have 'treated' a number of Poco a poco's RAW images so he has been able to assess the software. Topaz works best on the best images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose shallow depth of field, is there any particular reason for f/5,6? --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
EV Raudtee I imagine that your question is sarcastic as you have already rendered a judgement. So, what camera settings whould you have chosen at 15m depth? Poco a poco (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Could be sharper but IMO good for an underwater photo at this resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Not the sharpest, but difficult shot under water. The light works for me, subject well isolated from its background -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per others after considerable reflection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Talamanca hummingbird (Eugenes spectabilis) male 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 09:16:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support - Benh (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Well done. Noise is very well controlled for ISO 2500. Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --EV Raudtee (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support WOW! Buidhe (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Great -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Ranularia tripa 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 05:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Ranellidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support - Amazing! Really sharp at full size on my 19-inch monitor! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per Ikan, sharpness on this one is really good. Cmao20 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Advertisement for the music score of La Bohème, 1895.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 21:47:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Adolf Hohenstein - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Gutsy layout and fonts for 1895, looks more like 1970. --Cart (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Lag Ba'Omer bonfire Tel Aviv Israel.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 18:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events
Info created by Roi Boshi - uploaded by Roi Boshi - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Andrei (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose missing something spectacular. --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per EV Raudtee - just a fire to me. The fire does have a nice shape, so I can understand why you like it, but that doesn't make this an exceptional photo to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado thin black margin.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 11:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1800-1850
Info The Third of May 1808, one of Goya's most famous and groundbreaking paintings. created by Francisco Goya - uploaded by Papa Lima Whiskey 2 - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support This file is pretty much File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg with the gilded frame and black margin on the left removed as much as possible. The resolution remains as high as before. -- StellarHalo (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Good quality, but the frame pieces are annoying. Or are they part of the painting? --Andrei (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Question Why saved at lossy Photoshop 8? And why the black line? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment @Andrew J.Kurbiko: @Charlesjsharp: I think I could provide explanation on the black line on the left edge of the painting. Looking at the painting along with its gilded frame in the Prado Museum, you can see the same black thin line. Comparing this to the photo of it without the frame taken while it was being restored in 2008, I believe that this black line is part of the painting rather than part of the frame piece. In addition, all the large digital reproductions of this painting I found on the Internet either have the same black line or if it does not, a small part of the painting is cropped from its left side such as this and this, which is not surprising since the line is not straight. --StellarHalo (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment Unlikely to be part of the painting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment Why do you think so? The frame is gilded and the black line is not straight. Goya must have messed up a bit on his canvas. StellarHalo (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The "black line" is most likely the gap between the paining itself and the frame. Old paintings with the canvas stretched on a wooden frame, that might not have been perfectly straight and rectangular to begin with, get warped when the wood dries. In a lot of cases the painting and the frame don't match up perfectly and gaps appear. Some frames are made to cover a small portion of the paining's edges, some are not. In this case, it looks like the frame might not have been a perfect fit for the painting to begin with. --Cart (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Excellent. I think Cart's explanation for the frame is probably the right one. Cmao20 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Thanks to explanation from Cart. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
SupportIf you'd care to nominate this over on en:WP:FPC as well, please do so. An excellent choice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Habonim-Dor Beach.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 09:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Shipwrecks
Info created & uploaded by טל שמע - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I was waiting to nominate this one by myself. A very great photo. --Andrei (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support very high quality, even higher "wow factor"! Buidhe (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support with small edit. --Ivar (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Will support when the horizon is level. --Cart (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@W.carter: I already did that, maybe "purging" will help. --Ivar (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Yep, Ivar, thanks! I forgot to do that. Need coffee. --Cart (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
~~Support~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment now neutal per Colin's comments. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Very nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support though perhaps a bit of liberty has been taken with the WB for dramatic effect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Very noticeable that the sky is darkened (whether it is with a filter or in post) but I like the effect still, and it doesn't ruin the dramatic composition. - Benh (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment As Benh notes, the sky appears to have a strong graduated filter applied. I hate the effect. It's corny and looks unreal. -- Colin (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per Benh and others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Red neutral Overprocessed. I also noticed the darkened sky before Benh's comment, and this confirms my impression. The more I look at it, the more it bugs me. The picture has potential (despite the low DoF), but currently it's too artificial -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support ---Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose to prevent speedy promotion. I agree with Colin and Basile. The graduated filter is really obvious and it makes an impressive photo look overprocessed to me. Cmao20 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak support Great, but it’s a pity about the sky. --Aristeas (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Per Cmao20, otherwise great shot Poco a poco (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Neukirchen-Vluyn, Schachtanlage Niederberg 1-2, 2018-08 CN-02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 09:39:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Carschten - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Nice lighting, but not convinced by the composition. The foreground trees are unbalanced (only on the right side and not balanced out by the statue on the left) and block the main facade. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per King --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support The subject is good enough to feature IMO Cmao20 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per King. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Wroclaw Most Mlynski w porannej mgle przed switem 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 07:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Andrei (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This would be a great place for a noir film shot, but though it's an atmospheric photo, I don't find it a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose cropped right side of the bridge. --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Very noir. Especially with the ghostly figure on the left - probably technically speaking a flaw, but it's perfect here. Not sure what's supposed to be wrong with the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment Since you asked what we opposers think is wrong with the composition, my answer would be probably what EV Raudtee said. Because the right side of the bridge is cropped, I find that it impedes eye movement in the entire right third or so of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Great atmosphere but the composition just isn't there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan and King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Atraksi Sembur Api Reog Ponorogo.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 05:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Dedesudiana265 - uploaded by Dedesudiana265 - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Impressive performance, but we've had photos with better composition and image quality in 2008: File:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose lacking in detail. Tomer T (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Lots of wow but unfortunately I agree with KoH and Tomer T, the quality is not quite FP and the composition is not really special. Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per others. --EV Raudtee (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Stawa Młyny panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 15:58:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Poland
Info created by Hanc.tomasz - uploaded by Hanc.tomasz - nominated by Kulawik.pl -- Kulawik.pl (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I think it's very good view of this place -- Kulawik.pl (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose You're right, it's a great view, but I'm not convinced it's fully sharp. Take a look at the tower at full resolution and compare it to the other material in Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers. It looks to me almost like the focus has been missed. A real shame as it's an amazing and beautiful shot. (There is also a black border at the bottom centre of the image that needs to be cropped or cloned out.) Cmao20 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Yes what a shame that there are too many technical shortcomings: tower looks slanted, it is OOF, and the panorama was not properly stitched, with the broken horizon. What a nice exposure though. - Benh (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose amazing atmosphere, but how sad, that the tower is not in focus. --Ivar (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Regretful oppose per Ivar and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Hidden Peak Fire Lookout at sunset, with smokey haze from nearby fires.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 15:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#United_States
Info created & uploaded by Nick Archibald - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Good... -- Kulawik.pl (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Wow! Cmao20 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I'm only skeptical about the compression used. After NR, the file gets bigger? Surely this can be reduced. Disk space is not free ressource. - Benh (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

❎ Discussion about jpg compression level

I've seen this before if the 'restorer' use a better program than the 'uploader' originally had. It has happened to me too when I have helped some user who didn't have access to Photoshop and Lightroom. Small changes will increase the file in those programs. I don't think that small difference in file size is a big issue here since we are actually encouraged to upload as big files as possible.--Cart (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If the restorer started from the source material, I would be fine, but I strongly suspect (s)he started from the the JPEG. And the changes are mainly details removal, so should reduce the amount of information the file carries, and hence its size. Yes it doesn't really matter here, and it would be even more stupid to add a new version on top since MediaWiki keeps all versions: the space is lost already. But maybe some people read me and agree with me that our planet has limited ressources ;) - Benh (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

more stupid thing is already done, because I've found some more light dust spots. --Ivar (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ooops sorry... (really). Hopefully we will be both more careful on our next uploads now... - Benh (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I did a little experiment where I downloaded the original file and did only a mild NR on it in Photoshop, no dust spot removal, and just by doing that and save, the file jumped from 9.25 MB to 12.7 MB. Anyone can test this. --Cart (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You probably used different settings and lesser compression that's all ;) but the details was lost by the first compression so this would be useless outside an experiment. - Benh (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean. I didn't use any of Ivar's files, but went back in history to the original file, same as Ivar did unless Ivar had access to the original raw file. I assume you know that you can access the first (or any older) version of the file by clicking on the small thumbnail in the file's history. I think it also has to do with that when you do NR, you create better gradients between pixel areas. These areas that before the NR had more pixels of the same color, become several different colors and this will increase the file size. --Cart (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI Topaz Denoise increases file size as it sharpens as well as denoises. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The filesize is partly determined by the settings on the software you use. See this analysis for Lightroom/Photoshop. I reckoned that Lightroom setting 90 (out of 100) and Photoshop 11 (out of 12) offered the best trade-off of file reduction vs retaining detail. I couldn't easily distinguish using the max setting from the "one stop down" setting but going another stop down did cause a small visible change at 100% pixel peeping. However, even then the change was "the noise shifted" rather than anything objectionable. I appreciate you can't get back what you lost, but you can stop it getting worse. This is particularly true if you have cropped the top or left, since those JPG 8x8 squares no longer line up.

This affects just storage size on Wikimedia's servers, and the odd few of us who ever look at the full size version. When someone looks at an image on Wikipedia or a reduced size version on Commons, the MediaWiki thumbnailer will have aggressively compressed that before sending it out. Benh, have a look at Special:NewFiles and you'll soon realised that a few extra MB in a high quality photo such as this is really not WikiMedia's problem. Plus, on the global scheme of things, a few milliseconds of Netflix blows this out the water, not to mention the x-rated portion of the internet. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's more serious a topic than I first thought. Cart, Charlesjsharp filesizes are determined by many things and mainly the information the files contains and the compression algorithm. Higher noise photo will yield larger size because of higher frequency information which are harder to compress. So usually, an NRed file will be smaller at equal compression algorithm. Keep in mind Jpeg is a lossy algorithm too, so it's a bit of vanity to think that by saving with a bigger size from a small size Jpeg, you'll get better results. It's as Colin said: at most, you'll stop making it worse. Charles, saying that topaze increases size whether you sharpen or NR misses a chunk of the story. You've got to tell on top how the original files were compressed and how topaze saves them too for a proper comparison. Colin, wrt size and space on Wikimedia servers, I can tell size doesn't seem to be a Wikimedia problem. I was just thinking about general use of ressource. Nothing is free, so let's use only what's necessary. That was my philosophy moment only. - Benh (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

However, I think that worrying about trying to make the file size smaller, in order to save a few MB on Wikimedia servers, is wasting another precious resource: one's life. And think of the likely other problem this worry may lead to: that someone uses too high a compression in order to save space, and ends up introducing JPG artefacts. Better to err on the side of too little compression. In the time it takes you to read this sentence, Netflix has streamed terrabytes of data across the internet. So, philosophically, as they say in the US, "don't sweat the small stuff". -- Colin (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Benh Files saved directly from RAW into Photoshop CS6 at maximum size jpg then put through by Topaz denoise AI on auto setting (includes sharpening) always increase in file size. Without exception. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Charlesjsharp I might be wrong in ur case, but I usually try to avoid a lossy file in the middle of my workflow. Jpeg, even at max size is still lossy. Maybe you could switch to tiff for that step? - Benh (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to export RAW straight to JPG from Lightroom for this reason, but if I ever need to edit it in Photoshop I always save as 8-bit TIFF (compressed LZW) for small edits, and 16-bit TIFF (compressed ZIP) for major edits (for future proofing, because if I ever need a 16-bit version I don't want to redo all my local changes). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Colin I totally agree :) my example is a bit extreme. But think of it that way: millions of cigarette butts on the streets, so how is one more going to make it worse? I'd still avoid throwing them anywhere (OK I don't smoke so it helps) :D Sorry for the digression. - Benh (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support --Cart (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment The sky to the left of the hut looking so different to the right is offputting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I was a judge for WLM-US that year and it definitely stood out to me as one of the best. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I, too, remember this from the WLM-US judging that year. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Wegerich Scheckenfalter Paarung.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 15:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_(Brush-footed_Butterflies)
Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support For me - beautiful photo -- Kulawik.pl (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Wow. Great details and colours. -- Colin (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per Colin. It's also great that Sven Damerow provides us with these images in such high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Super, but I wonder how come they are mating? Must be carrying on from the previous evening I suppose, because they have not flown since nightime. Real commitment. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Amazing! I decided to couple an old 19-inch Dell monitor to my laptop, and the butterflies and droplets look great on that screen at full size! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Really nice at thumbnail size, wonderful at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support woaaaw, the thumb doesn't really do it justice. I wonder if a different lighting wouldn't have emphasized the dropplet even better... but this is the most romantic mating I can think of - Benh (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Damp and stiff from a cold night at 06:31 in the morning with a guy taking photos of the act? ;-) SCNR --Cart (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Especially when the camera in 20 times my size ;) - Benh (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support --Cart (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 07:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Brattåsberget by Hanneviken with migratory birds in Norrkila, Lysekil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 13:51:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak Support Really beautiful light and clouds. The composition could be better, with more in the foreground so the horizon isn't so centered. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no more foreground to be had since it's brambles and a road. --Cart (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Excellent. The light is really lovely and it's a very scenic vista. Cmao20 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Very peaceful. It's really hard to spot the deer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Nice but please check the sky for some minor dust spots. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I saw those but thought they were little dark clouds. Worth double-checking, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks Podz, I'm not that used to getting dustspots since I have a fixed lens. Only one side to keep clean. :) I actually got the idea to make this panorama after seeing your File:Travis Wetland panorama, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg. So now I get a chance to thank you. --Cart (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@W.carter: I wanted to mention that it reminds of my picture actually :) Good to see that inspiration is spreading across FPC. Thanks for removing the spot. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support I was leaning toward neutral because of the horizon in the middle. But it's a really nice sight with beautiful reflection and light. U probably saw it, but the left part of the picture is blurry. Not a deal breaker, but worth mentioning. - Benh (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Splendid and serene. --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Bielawa Zachodnia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 09:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train stations
Info created by Atheros87 - uploaded by Atheros87 - nominated by Kulawik.pl -- Kulawik.pl (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I think it's very good photo -- Kulawik.pl (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose The composition is interesting but the sharpness is not good enough imo. Buidhe (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Needs perspective correction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I do like it, but it definitely needs a perspective correction - look at how the buildings are leaning away from the middle at the sides of the image. Cmao20 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Yes, you're right Cmao20. -- Kulawik.pl (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose uninteresting composition to me --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Pretty standard photo of a train station taken closer to the tracks than I would want to encourage and from the wrong side, at that; also background is weirdly overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Adliswil Werdsteg dawn.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 08:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Switzerland
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support This is quite a simple image, but I really like the light and the general mood. -- Domob (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Very nice mood. Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Nice but I find it a little bit too ordinary, sorry. Perhaps if the foreground would be more interesting, it could work but that grassy patch just doesn't wow me. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Podzemnik. This photo is nice, but I don't find the composition great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose agree with others -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Podzemnik --EV Raudtee (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Busy composition and posterized reflections. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Golden monkey (Cercopithecus kandti) eating.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 08:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)
Info There are around 2,500 endangered golden monkeys left in the wild. They live in large social groups at high elevation in an area in East Africa of 5,000 sq km. Bamboo is their favourite food. One of the images in Issue Three of my free magazine. Read the magazine here. Includes a feature on Poco a poco and images from Benh , George Chernilevsky and Ermell. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:26, 01 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:26, 01 July 2020 (UTC)
Support high quality and very valuable. Buidhe (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Nice to get one eating. And lovely magazine again. Cmao20 (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per others. I can't help thinking "He's got stuff in his hair!" ;-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Something is wrong with the voting period. --Ivar (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Info Ivar: There is nothing wrong with the voting period. Charles created this page at 08:27, 23 June 2020‎. Take a look in the page history. However, he didn't add it to this list until now, so the very short voting period is a result of that. Not sure why it was done in this manner. We could "reset" the nom by tweaking it using the {{Bots}} template from when Charles actually added it to the list and made it public. I think that would be better than going through all the mess of withdrawing and making a second nomination. What say you? --Cart (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. --A.Savin 11:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you had a more elegant solution. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment Why is there sharp texture on the monkey's right hand? Shouldn't it be out-of-focus and blurred? Is this some AI Sharpening artifact? Can it be tweaked? The broken near end of the bamboo looks oddly crisp, like someone has cut it out of the image with scissors. Compare to the original upload which is soft. I can see how better software can improve the lighting of the first version, but bringing this degree of sharpness that wasn't there makes me a bit uncomfortable. Along the monkey's right cheek, you can see bits where the out-of-focus background has got weirdly sharpened. The overall improvement is very impressive and these glitches are only visible at 100%, but I am a bit worried if the AI is introducing texture and crisp hair that wasn't actually captured? What do you think? -- Colin (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment All sharpening introduces sharpness 'that wasn't there'. Topaz AI software can be aggressive and introduce artefacts. It's a balance which I try to manage by using layers, but of course a) I don't always get it right and b) voters have different opinions of sharpness, noise etc. I can reduce the artefacts on the hand. The end of the bamboo is just carelessness where I reduced exposure, but didn't do it very well. New version on its way. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support The only niggle is that we can still spot transitions between the NRed area and the one unscattered by (I guess) the plugin. But it's doing a good job generally speaking. As a side note, good timing! ;) - Benh (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Good enough for the EV and the conditions under which it was taken. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Eunateko Andra Maria ekainaren amaieran 13.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 11:22:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Spain
Info created by Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Theklan (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Nice shot but technical issues: lack of sharpness, grainy, colour aberrations. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Purple fringing Buidhe (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Regretful oppose Quite a lot of purple and also green colour fringing, and also blown clouds. I like the striking composition but the quality is not quite FP. Cmao20 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Basotxerri --EV Raudtee (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I think the flower so close up front is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Wochenspruch der NSDAP 11 January 1943.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 10:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Posters and advertisements
Info created by Werner von Axster-Heudtlass - restored and uploaded by Buidhe - nominated by Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Buidhe (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Pretty chilling stuff. The quality seems good so I think this can make a good if unpleasant historical FP. Cmao20 (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Agreed. High quality print and scan, striking, and worth a feature. It's important to understand how propaganda in the service of evil can be artful and effective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per others. Important historical documentation.--Peulle (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per above. Chilling, yes. --Cayambe (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
~~Strong oppose~~ until a proper description has been added that explains what this is. You've got to be kidding me: I can't believe that the only content of the decription of a file at Commons is an un-commented, verbatim Goebbels quote. Given that educational value seems to be the major reason for support here, we better make sure it actually has educational value. Keep in mind that this will become eligible for POTY voting. This is not just another painting of a random historical figure. This is not something you can have sitting around without context. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: The quote is the text displayed on the poster; I've expanded the description with more information about the publication. There are a lot of issues of this periodical, many of which are public domain (most of those can be found in Wochenspruch der NSDAP) however, in my opinion this is the one with the most "wow factor". I would not support this for POTY. Buidhe (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That's good information. Could you include all of that in German, too? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly I can read German but not write it. Buidhe (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Very nice, that's the kind of information I'd expect from a FP candidate file description page. Thank you, and apologies for my strong language. I might be able to translate this into German later if I find a quiet moment. --El Grafo (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Here is a "neutral" description indifferent. --Neptuul (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Question What would you like to add to the description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

the historic context in January 1943: Höfle Telegram, Battle of Stalingrad --Neptuul (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that that context would improve the description. I'm not sure it's essential, but it's certainly helpful. Buidhe, would you like to add a sentence or two with links? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Done Buidhe (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

there is a dead link and a vexing chronological order, I will fix it this evening. But I agree with the argument: Must this realy be a FP? --Neptuul (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I generally do not think that a quote by Göring deserves to be "featured" anywhere. --Andrei (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Question As a Jew who knows of dozens of relatives who were murdered by the Nazis in Poland, should I agree with you? For whatever reason, I don't, but I agree with the fruitful efforts to provide more context. I guess the question is whether by featuring this photo, we honor the man or his party. And I don't think saying that this is one of the best photos on the site and showing how propaganda in service of evil can be effective, we are thereby doing the equivalent of erecting an equestrian statue to Robert E. Lee in the public square. I had more trouble with a nomination of a photo of an equestrian statue of Khmelnitsky, because that is an existing heroic statue that is currently in the public square and honors a notorious Jew-killer. This would be a photo of a document by a party that is blessedly out of power in Germany and Austria. But I think the crux of the issue can be reduced to this: Is a photo of an immoral document itself inherently immoral? I don't think so, but I respect the argument that by featuring the photo, we risk promoting the contents of the document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've always believed that FP should be for any images that illustrate a subject particularly well, while POTD/POTY are for images that we are proud to display as a community. Certain types of FPs should not make it into the main page IMO, such as those depicting criminals, graphic violence, or sexual acts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Khmelnitsky ended up being POTD for 2020-08-24. I do not want such kind of material to be given a platform here. This poster is already VI, on my opinion its more than enough. --Andrei (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I surely respect your opinion on this. I recused myself from voting on one of the nominations of a photo of that equestrian statue because it wasn't clear to me that on the basis of quality and composition, it should be opposed, but I couldn't support portraying a heroic statue of him neutrally while the image of the statue itself seemed to honor him. However, I feel like this is different in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ikan! --Andrei (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Per Ikan and Peulle. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Question looking at the file history, how did the file got "enhanced" from 1,790 × 2,584 to 2,863 × 4,084? Was a new source found somewhere? If so, if should be indicated. Renata3 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Renata3: Nope, I just figured out how to download the highest quality version from the same website. Buidhe (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This image shows the poster as it is, without anything that puts it into the historic context. So it can (and probably will) easily get into the wrong hands. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I think that those wrong hands will probably get on it without our help, if they haven't already. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support I honestly think that the context of this - a cry to finish the job then, not leave it to the descendants, and how it can only be seen in a limited range of contexts that all help put a lie to the common myth that the general public was not aware of the Holocaust - I think the encyclopedic value outweighs any remaining propoganda value. I would suggest POTD is very careful with descriptions (Buidhe has said it should be pulled from POTY consideration above, so as long as the POTY organisers are informed of that, I think we can ignore this issue), but I think that, as long as a certain amount of care is taken, this sort of thing is valuable. Buidhe has been working hard to write, in an appropriate, academic, not-being-a-Nazi manner, about aspects of the history of Naziism over on en-Wiki, and this sort of visual evidence is helpful to such articles.

Obviously, there are reasons to be careful with such things. Our goal is to educate about, not accidentally promote. But I think this is about as good of an illustrative example as one can hope for, and - although perhaps I might be naive here - I don't see how it could be used to promote modern neo-Naziism, as it's very much of its time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Amusing that Göring is made to look so leaderly and heroic here rather than the Jabba-esque figure he had become by then.
Since everyone seems to be weighing in on the morality of featuring this, I will, in addition to seconding Peulle and Ikan, note that it makes us think about propaganda and how easily it can sway people, including us. The quote, outside of its historical context, is something almost any politician could say, and many have (including, I think, John F. Kennedy) and which in many other contexts many of us here would not disagree with (In fact, this is basically one of the arguments for addressing climate change now).
It also shows (like the Pernkopf atlas, an article which I did a lot of work on) how artistic talent can be harnessed to execrable causes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Have hastitated for a few days, but Ikan, Adam, and Daniel are right. --Aristeas (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:DPortnoy Jan2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 09:38:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Atwhiteley - uploaded by Atwhiteley - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 09:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- ahuR ☘ 09:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose this would make a good valued image but not amazing enough to be featured, sorry. Buidhe (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per above + possible copyright issues (→ DR filed) --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Lacking wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose and suggest it be withdrawn due to the copyright issues that have landed it at DR. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per others --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per all. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Likely copyright violation, so fails Commons:Image guidelines#Image page requirements. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Vakil Mosque, 13 July 2017.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 09:34:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Iran
Info created by Yare zaman2000 - uploaded by Yare zaman2000 - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 09:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- ahuR ☘ 09:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose Light and colours are nice, but I fear that the quality is not there, sorry. f/3.2 seems an odd choice for this kind of photograph, and indeed even important parts of the subject are very soft, e.g. the wall at the right. In addition, the crop at the top right is somewhat surprising; wouldn’t it be better to show more of the magnificent vault? Sorry again, --Aristeas (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Aristeas' thoughtful review. The golden light on the left hand side is lovely and might nudge it into FP were the quality better, but there is quite a bit of blurring and unsharpness, and I too am not convinced by the crop. It's a beautiful picture but I don't think it is quite up to the standard especially since we've had so many lovely photos of Iranian architecture from Poco a poco and more recently from Amirpashaei. Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per others, and in addition, the floor looks odd with artifacts. It's a pity, because the motif is so beautiful, so I would have liked to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Yes, it’s a pity. I would have been happy to support this photo, too, but looking into it I recognized it was not possible, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose My opposition doesn't reach the technical issues. Even without them, you have that awkward rectangle of blue sky at the upper left, and really this looks like a picture with several more definite FPs hiding in it. It's trying to do too much. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:ArT of opEN doors project - Rua de Santa Maria - Funchal 37.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 07:54:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info One of the doors of the "ArT of opEN doors project", showing the preparation of Poncha, a traditional drink of Madeira, with a "mexelote", also called "caralhinho", a kind of a muddler; Rua de Santa Maria 170, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Like it - good quality and interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Looking at COM:FOP Portugal, I'm not sure that an image primarily of a two-dimensional artwork likely to be subject to copyright in Portgual is going to be a free one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- - Info It is free. Please compare with the summary table here, there is FoP of 2-dimensional objects in Portugal. (Otherwise you should delete all pictures in the ArT of opEN doors project in Funchal category including it's subcategories). --Llez (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord -- 2020 -- 7780.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 04:15:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Info The picture shows a section of an inclined and rusty pipe on which water has left traces. -- XRay ^talk 04:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support per Ikan; me too. --Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support A painting! -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Outstanding abstract work. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Not really a fan of abstract arts myself but this one in particular is quite fascinating. --StellarHalo (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment The sharpness is not really good. --A.Savin 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Now this I like. Could make a good phone desktop cropped in on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. ///Eatcha (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Industry#Germany

File:Münster, Hafen, ehem. Schüttvorrichtung -- 2020 -- 8064.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 04:12:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support not without technical flaws (highlight recovery artifacts on high contrast edges) but I like Star Wars and the sandcrawler enough to support this - Benh (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Well done. Cmao20 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose Per Benh, I get the Star Wars idea, but that's not enough to sustain this as an FP and the background is kind of busy. Also, there's still CA on the roofline to the left, and a lot of this isn't that sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have a look to the CAs. --XRay ^talk 04:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Done It should be better now. --XRay ^talk 12:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Water reflection of the mountains of Vang Vieng with crepuscular rays.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 03:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Great, beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Again, superb. I love the rays peeking out from behind the hills. Cmao20 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support A bit dark and not the most attractive at thumbnail size, but would make a very fine wall print. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Now this one I like. Nice mood. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I personally find the composition not compelling, mostly because of the asymmetry between left and right (going from "high" to "low"). Your other nomination works much better for me. --Domob (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Front view of a stream with a tree as vanishing point, mountains and mist in the countryside of Vang Vieng.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 03:17:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support I see 2 dust spots, 1 each in the upper right and left. Otherwise, gorgeous and transporting (i.e., makes me remember what it's like to be in a beautiful place in Southeast Asia in that kind of fog). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Spotted :-) Fixed. Thanks, Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You bet. These are two particularly lovely nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Excellent composition and atmosphere. Cmao20 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support A little busier than I'd like, but the underlying idea behind the composition is spot-on. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Regretful oppose A great idea that almost works for me but for the oddly cropped puddle at left. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Very nice mood and composition in my view. --Domob (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Sanderling auf Spiekeroog - Nationalpark niedersächsisches Wattenmeer.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2020 at 09:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Scolopacidae_(Typical_Waders)
Info created by Ssprmannheim - uploaded by Ssprmannheim - nominated by Ssprmannheim -- Ssprmannheim (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Ssprmannheim (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~ Beautiful but the tail is too close to the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Much better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Weak support Really nice image and good quality but I agree with KoH, the bird is too far off to the right of the frame. To make the photo less unbalanced, have you considered a square crop that centres the bird in the frame? See my note - it's still a little tight on the right but overall it's a big improvement to me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded a different crop Ssprmannheim
Oppose The crop is less important than the lack of sharpness Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Charles, but I also would want to see the reflection of the bird's entire body. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Karte Deutsches Reich, Verwaltungsgliederung 1900-01-01.png[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2020 at 17:23:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Europe
Info Administrative Map of the German Empire as of January 1st, 1900. created by Maximilian Dörrbecker - latest version uploaded by NordNordWest - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support This is not only one of the finest digital maps on here but also by far the best administrative map of the German Empire I have ever seen. -- StellarHalo (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment You guys would know me as Alsakan but I just changed my username. As promised, I will switch between FP nomination and delisting nomination. StellarHalo (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Question Why the map is not in SVG? --Wilfredor (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: I am not the author so I am not sure but, I don't think this map was created using vector graphics to begin with. --StellarHalo (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, sorry I didn't remark that you're not the author --Wilfredor (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose should be SVG, should be without German text and logo, sources in description are also only external links.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Question @BevinKacon: Why does the map has to SVG? Some featured digital maps such as this, this, this, and this are PNG. Also, what is wrong with the German text? It is a historical map of Germany created by a German. Are you of the opinion that the map should be in English instead? I would really appreciate it if you could clarify your position and perhaps after that, I could add some more FPs to the my list of future delisting nomination. StellarHalo (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi I will expand on each point for you:
SVG - such files can be sized without loss of quality. I did not oppose for this reason alone.
German text - the map should be language neutral, native German names of places fine, but the sub-headings are German. They could just be deleted, or replaced with any universal sign or symbol if possible.
The files you gave as examples did not have full support in their review, and they passed review process many years ago when the standard was lower.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: I am not exactly sure what you mean by "language-neutral" in your second point.

Do you believe those sub-headings, which serve to inform the readers about each separate section of the map, should be in English or have an English translation either on the map or in the file description?
Do you think there should be a separate English version of the map?
How do you think a multi-lingual administrative map would work in a practical manner especially for the ones that seek to have as much information of a complicated federal system of administrative divisions on one page like this one?
Or do you believe that only the maps that effectively accommodate foreigners in addition to their respective intended audience are worthy of FP?

--StellarHalo (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Work out whatever technicalities you want to work out, but I'm impressed with this map. So what that it's in German? It's a map of the German Empire. Anyone who reads Roman letters can look up the German words and names if they like, as is common when using German references. I don't understand the objection that the source links are external. It's essential to type all that up in text? Maybe as part of a PhD dissertation project or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Impressive work, laid out in an attractive manner. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per BevinKacon --Andrei (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per BevinKacon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

File:SL Ella asv2020-01 img29 Dhowa Temple.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2020 at 11:27:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Sri Lanka
Info Shrine room of the Dhowa rock temple, near Ella ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 11:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose The strong distorsions ruin the subject, due to the ultra-wide angle. Currently these sculptures show a shrunk aspect, as if they were artificially large. Easily fixable, though: the same image approximately resized 7000 x 4896 pixels provides more natural proportions in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Support now -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I like this photo, but Basile’s suggestion seems very plausible to me, so I would suggest to try it. --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Done I have applied a tighter crop (yet I'm not willing to crop away big parts of the ceiling, as Basile apparently suggests). --A.Savin 14:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Thank you! But I understand Basile in another way: I understand that he suggests not to crop, but to resize (to put it directly: to distort ;–) the photo in order to change the proportions. @Basile Morin: could you confirm or clarify this? Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, I was suggesting to "resize" (I know this word can be ambiguous), not to crop anything. So, applying an homothetic transformation, with the height remaining as it is, and the width reduced. Then, the proportions of the people will look more natural. In Photoshop (although I've got the menu in French): Edition > Transformation > homothetic transformation. In Lightroom: Corrections of the lens > Manual > Aspect. Hope this is clearer. Thanks, Aristeas -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, ~~but this kind of distortion goes way behind "red line" for me~~. --A.Savin 18:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
On a second though, I've gone ahead and applied it a bit (+50 of 100 in the Lightroom feature you suggested) -- it's maximum for me, hopefully it is enough; if not, be it no FP. Thanks --A.Savin 19:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement tbh, but it was FP to me anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Perfect. With the height enlarged and the tight cut you made up and down, the final ratio is exactly the same as the one I proposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Really compelling now. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Syrian hamster - mating.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2020 at 04:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cricetidae (Cricetids)
Info Syrian hamster aka Golden hamster mating. All by Augustus Binu - nominated by Mydreamsparrow -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Background is a bit noisy but pretty good overall. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Cute but too noisy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose and too blurred with offputting blue background. Borderline QI. Downsampled. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Exactly per Charlesjsharp. --Cayambe (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Charles. We have much better animal pr0n that hasn't made FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Charlesjsharp --EV Raudtee (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Skyline of the Central Business District of Singapore with Esplanade Bridge in the evening.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2020 at 07:22:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Downtown Core is the historical and downtown centre of the city-state of Singapore and the main commercial area in Singapore excluding reclaimed lands with many integrated resorts such as the Marina Bay Sands, one of the most expensive buildings in the world, with the most expensive standalone casino at Bayfront Avenue. There are many skyscrapers in Raffles Place, Tanjong Pagar and Marina Bay CBD with a height limit of 280m. It is one of the eleven planning areas located within the most urbanised Central Area,

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Singapore
Info created & uploaded by User:Basile_Morin -- nominated by Editor-1 -- Editor-1 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Editor-1 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
~~Support~~ Abstain Thank you very much, Editor-1, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment Certainly a very good photo, but I like the crops in File:Skyline of the Central Business District of Singapore with Esplanade Bridge.jpg better. The right crop in this photo is very close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Good quality at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutral Nice image and decent resolution but feels a bit tight at the left, top, and especially the right. Could have also been taken 10-20 minutes later for better saturation in the sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Too much water, probably not the best POV to get both the skyline and the bridge. Good quality and lighting, but not extraordinary considering the FPs we have here, sorry Basile --Poco a poco (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If you think it has "Too much water" then you should see this featured picture of the same place and photographer, this proposed image is better in all aspects than another featured picture.--Editor-1 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I specifically cited that as having a better composition above, so I disagree that this one is "better in all aspects". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The other picture compensates it with a better crop on the left (too tight here) and the reflexions on the water, which don't stand out so good here --Poco a poco (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose per my remarks above and others. If the other picture is among the best on this site (and I think it is) and this one is IMO clearly not as good, I don't think this is one of the very best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Fine for me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Info Since Basile Morin has withdrawn the 'Alternative' and, for technical reasons, we can't put a partial 'Withdrawn' on a nom, I'm commenting out that section so it won't bug the voting on and closing of the nomination. Just rolling up the section is not enough. --Cart (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think commenting out was unnecessary, replacing the thumb image with a direct and bold link as you have suggested ("So please just give links (you can write them in bold) to photos you want to share with the voters in a non-Alt way.") is better and more useful.--Editor-1 (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That's another way to do it and it works just fine. --Cart (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support I think a dusk photo of this skyline from this angle goes well with a night photo; I'm not bothered by the crop since the reflections at dusk are inevitably shorter. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

❎ Alternative withdrawn by photographer

Alternative[edit]

File:Skyline of the Central Business District of Singapore with Esplanade Bridge in the evening (cropped).jpg

@King of Hearts, Ikan Kekek, Poco a poco: What is your opinion about this cropped version? I removed the far right/most right building whish is short/low-rise and unnecessary, this lossless crop made more space for the right side of the image. If another crop is needed please tell me.--Editor-1 (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

💡 @Editor-1: 3 things :

Do not display another image in a standard nomination, otherwise the bot will get misled at the end of the voting period.
For alternatives, especially with a cropped version, it's always better to ask / notify the photographer (when active, and this is the case here, I'm currently active on Commons). Photography is not only taking a subject, it's also about the choice of a framing. And I'm not sure to support your choice here.
When doing such modification from a file, please mention your name in addition to the author. Say you're the author of the new crop. A framing is about the management of the space, this is an important thing, not a minor detail. A crop can either reveal or ruin a picture, thus this is an artistic choice. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Also: please keep in mind the photographer can withdraw your nomination, if the candidature doesn't match the tastes. Concerning the oppose and neutral votes above (even if I don't share the ideas), they're perfectly legitimate. It's a matter of taste, and I find the arguments valid. In the other picture, I like the colors and the reflection. The large framing is wanted. In this one, the subtle light is interesting. Both pictures are different, and there is no "better" one in my opinion. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if the cropped version were offered as an alternative, I'd say I like its composition better than this picture but not as much as the night picture. The problem is the little bit of curved light pole that's cut off by the right crop. I'd seriously consider voting for it if it were offered. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No major difference. The first one is fine. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters" and "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." please don't worry yourself.
The first one is not fine enough, the far right building is obviously redundant.--Editor-1 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless the photographer approves of this alternative being nominated, I don't think we should vote on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor-1, yes nominations can be closed manually, but it is a longstanding practice not to muddle up a nomination with other files than proper 'Alternatives'. Any file, even non-images like sound-files or small images in signatures that are not template or script based, will be read as 'Alts' and this will for example prevent fifth-day closings by the Bot. So please just give links (you can write them in bold) to photos you want to share with the voters in a non-Alt way. We are capable of following links. Displaying other files just because you can, is not the best strategy. --Cart (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: Are you really sure you don't want this alternative even if User:King of Hearts -- User:Ikan Kekek -- User:Poco a poco prefer this? @Ikan Kekek: Can you please at least strike your opposite vote? thanks.--Editor-1 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor-1, I find the bridge a bit short, here, sorry, the balance looks better in the first version -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Dirt Bike IMG 4202.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2020 at 17:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment Could you do some selective NR on the sky? Given the small resolution of this image the noise is quite prominent in relative terms. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment what do you mean by selective NR ?.--Fischer.H (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fischer.H: In Photoshop, select just the sky, and do noise reduction on that part. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Very good catch! Impressive acrobatics -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support The noise is gentle and the picture is IMO compelling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Either the ground should explain how the bike ended up in the air, or the crop should be about the bike and biker. Now we have some ugly branches only, they do not fit in the context. —kallerna (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support The ground and its branches add up to the photo well, in my opinion. Also per Ikan. --panda kekok 9 04:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support --XRay ^talk 11:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Simpler than the other one was. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Wed 01 Jul → Mon 06 Jul
Thu 02 Jul → Tue 07 Jul
Fri 03 Jul → Wed 08 Jul
Sat 04 Jul → Thu 09 Jul
Sun 05 Jul → Fri 10 Jul
Mon 06 Jul → Sat 11 Jul

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]

Sat 27 Jun → Mon 06 Jul
Sun 28 Jun → Tue 07 Jul
Mon 29 Jun → Wed 08 Jul
Tue 30 Jun → Thu 09 Jul
Wed 01 Jul → Fri 10 Jul
Thu 02 Jul → Sat 11 Jul
Fri 03 Jul → Sun 12 Jul
Sat 04 Jul → Mon 13 Jul
Sun 05 Jul → Tue 14 Jul
Mon 06 Jul → Wed 15 Jul

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first) {{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}}.
Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
Save your edit.
If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to an appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
  - If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
  - If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
  - Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
  - The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
  - You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
  {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2020), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2020.
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. 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). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
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.
If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination[edit]

In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}}
Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
Save your edit.
Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2020), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.