Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Featured picture candidates)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

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 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

  • 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.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, 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 colour/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 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 colour 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.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, 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

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). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. 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 a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the "interest points", the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. 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, colour, 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.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours 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 colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour 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 a better picture 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

Set nominations

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

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

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}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

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 following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg 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}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg 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}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg 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]

  1. 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.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. 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.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. 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:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. 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 the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be polite[edit]

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

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

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

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.

Contents

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

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

True color image of Mars generated taken by the Rosetta spacecraft
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ESA & MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/RSSD/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA - uploaded by A2soup - nominated by A2soup -- A2soup (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best full disc image of Mars I know of. It's been around for a while but was only freely licensed today after I emailed them, as the ESA has been moving towards free licensing. -- A2soup (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Btw, can you tell me: what is the small dot/satellite above mars at about 7 o'clock? --PtrQs (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing. Charles (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Râşnov Citadel (Rosenauer Burg) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Râşnov Citadel, Romania

File:HibisGate3Dareios1AmunRaMut.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 15:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Relief of Persian king Darius I in Egypt

File:Sish Mahal, Jodhpur Fort.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 05:49:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sheesha Mahal, Mehrangarh fort
  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below the level of sharpness we typically expect of interior FPs. Overall I think the lighting is unbalanced; the bottom is a bit too dark for the composition to work in my mind. -- King of ♠ 07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, essentially per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 22:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A new Philips Series 7000 shaver head, photographed in the style of a promotional image. All by me -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 35 frames... great! --Ralf Roleček 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I must point out that there are a few minor blurry spots on edges and overlaps, because I spend some time retouching my recent own stacks correcting these things. – LucasT 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ...and sufficiently clean too. This is one piece of machinery you don't want a dirty close-up of! ;) The surface lends itself very nicely to such a photo. --cart-Talk 22:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just one little thing that could be corrected: Down center there are two places where you can see some flesh-toned reflections, probably from you. It would look nicer if those were in grey tones instead. --cart-Talk 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Cart, Lucas: I've updated a new version with the reflection removed and the blurred areas fixed with sharper frames. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Frank. I'm a wet shave man myself, though with more modern technology than your link :-). My wife thinks I'm completely bonkers, spending the evening in the kitchen taking dozens of photos of my son's shaver. I showed her the result and she said: "It's a shaver. So?" *sigh* -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great texture. -- King of ♠ 00:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot! I guess I´m gonna have to learn focus stacking :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Enthusiastic support Utterly stunning result! Was it really necessary to shoot 36 frames? What's the (average) DoF of each image? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per everyone else - really impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice shoot and professional and I think that your quality is improving Diliff Colin. Clean and perfect, I added a note to let more space there --The Photographer 12:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer, I'll check but I'm pretty sure I have no more of the image at the bottom, to change the crop. I agree I could have included a bit more when I took the photos. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you should do it again because the image is already done, however, it's a minor problem --The Photographer 12:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PlayaVarese-04920.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beach of stones before Varese beach
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, somewhat dull lighting, the clouds are a bit interesting, but the brown water destroys it and I see no clear subject. It looks like a just decent tourist shot to me, sorry. – LucasT 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7673.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nitpicks like the noisy upper edges aside, I'm sadly not wowed by it enough. It's a decent photo though. I just feel like a different camera position and composition would have emphasized the specialty of the wall better. – LucasT 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if it lacks the drama associated to this place, it is a pretty good description picture. The details on the wall are interesting, and even the people give a sense of the place, in a more mundane manner. The photo teaches. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Tomas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I haven't decided how or even whether to vote on this photo, but in some ways, I prefer several of your other photos of the Kotel to this one: File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7689.jpg has a satisfying near-rectilinearity as compared to this one's slant, and I like the motion of the men walking toward the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7691.jpg, which concentrates on the women's section, shows the pitchers for the blessing on washing, putting the wall in a different context, though there's a dust spot that should be cleaned toward the right above the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7690.jpg shows men praying and touching the wall from an appealing angle. None of the photos are perfect and all can be critiqued, but all are good and different, but compared to the others, I can't think of anything that strikes me about this one as special. So that's likely to result in either a non-vote or a mild oppose vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-11-30 Cimitero Monumentale Milano RR2 7543.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a well executed photo and a worthy QI, but it misses the wow factor for FP status. You might find the sight interesting and impactful but the photo doesn't bring this out for me I'm afraid. – LucasT 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - Could be a bit sharper, but the composition works for me. I like the contrast of the Cimitero Monumentale with the modern buildings to its right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 08:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. It seems the building is cut in half at left. Yann (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that way because it is. You could let me know if I'm missing something, but the way I see it, the only question is whether the result of that is good. You find that it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow per Lucas. I get the feeling the goal was the contrast between the old and new buildings balanced by the similar form of the old building and the Unicredit Tower (as well as one of the other buildings whose names I know but cannot remember and do not have enough time to look up right now). But there's too much going on to get it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:RPM abstract at night.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

RPM gauge abstract
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles (maybe there is a better category)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've been back at it trying more abstract photography, and have been evolving more in the previous weeks, including off of what I nominated last week. I this photograph I tried to make my subject more recognizable, while still bringing abstract elements into the photograph through the blur and distortion. As with my other photograph I nominated, this may see opposition, though thought it was worth sharing. Thanks. -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It works for me. It looks like a still from a time travelling movie. Exciting, ratteling, blurred. (And I feel bad opposing abstracts, I feel some have a place as FP) – LucasT 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question sorry but to me its only a unsharp picture? --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It becomes an abstract art photo if it somehow stimulates your fantasy. This is clearly telling me: "Houston, we have a problem." --cart-Talk 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, like Ralf, I just find this a blurred figurative photo, not something I really consider an abstraction. Also, the feelings that it gives me are eye strain and wanting to yell "Get out of the car! You're drunk!" Perhaps for a movie, this could be a useful blurring for a drunk driving scene, but for abstract photography, I want to see non-figurative shapes and lines. [shrug] That could be my assumptions and limitations speaking, but you could also call it something else: My personal taste. So I salute the fact of experimentation, but not this result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. The drunk driving thing was one of my first thoughts... I've never done such a horrible thing myself of course... Face-tongue.svg lNeverCry 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not for me. Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This might not be a good sharp image (don't think it was even planned as one) but it is giving an old sci-fi film feel. I personally liked it. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose might be a good photo, but not a FP for me. -- -donald- (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good photo for what it's trying to do, but I don't see it as being in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gibraltar Barbary Macaques BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 18:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gibraltar Barbary Macaques (Macaca sylvanus)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stunning image and I feel it has FP potential. I have two problems: 1. It looks a bit soft, I would sharpen it more, there is detail to be revealed in the fur. 2. the powerlines cable car cables are distracting, sadly. I saw that they are easy to remove, and I did it for fun. Feel free to nominate this as an alternative if you like it, or if you allow I can nominate it myself:
    Gibraltar BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28 removed power lines.jpgLucasT 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - To me, this is an FP as is. The power lines don't disturb me at all; they're part of the deliberately somewhat unsharp but sufficiently clear urban background. The slight softness of the monkeys is just that - slight softness. I wouldn't object to judicious sharpening, but I think they're quite clear enough, as this is not a species-identification photo but a touching urban scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The cables are probably a cable car, not power lines, but it is better without them. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right, the slanted support structure barely visible is a telltale sign, lighter power lines don't require that. – LucasT 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The cables don't bother me since they follow the composition of the monkeys but there is room for a bit more light in the photo. The name of the file should also be fixed since it doesn't mention the main motif, the macaques. --cart-Talk 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support it, hoping that it might turn out a bit brighter. ;) It is such great image otherwise. --cart-Talk 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The face of the left hand animal is blurred and I don't like the cables, nor the lighting. Charles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We can discuss the technical and compositional issues all we want, but the fact for me is that I can't get past that pose. I think we already know what the 2017 PotY will be, based on how the public votes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:River Narmada from Maheshwar Fort.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 18:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Narmada from Maheshwar fort.

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark Ezarateesteban 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral let´s wait Ezarateesteban 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the chosen composition and lighting work perfectly here. There are "precedents" btw., cf. this great image, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is great, and to me the whole point is that we're viewing a river and the opposite bank from a dark place, through its beautiful decorations. This is one case in which reducing the darkness would also reduce the magic (or if you prefer, the effect). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The windows make a beautiful frame to let you look out - and I think to lighten this darkness would spoil this frame. --PtrQs (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to me the Darkness is nice, better than HDR. --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very poetic triptych, HDR would totally ruin it. --cart-Talk 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would have included the shadows more. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The concept of framing is a nice idea, but the scene through the frame is too mundane, and not interesting. Foreground shadows should not look this dark, and should have a little detail -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Without the dark foreground the lights falling on the ground won't look that beautiful IMHO. The contrast here is helping create a mood. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Sumanta. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ostankino Tower.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ostankino Tower
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Ostankino TV Tower in Moscow. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very good, but I see 2 dust spots near the upper left corner and 1 on the left side lower down in the sky that need to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I removed all dust spots. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Apart from those dust spots I see a slight bending / CCW-tilt. Repairing this would significantly raise your chances. Having seen your picture in QI, I expected to find it here in the FP candidates ... --PtrQs (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but per PtrQs. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The reflection of the tower extends gracefully into the fallen leaves below. -- King of ♠ 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - There might still be some very light dust spots, but if so, they're so light I'm not sure I see them. This is good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I wish that wedge of sidewalk or whatever wasn't there at the lower left, and the sky still looks a little spotty, but nicely done otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pena Palace Sintra.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pena National Palace

File:Entrance on Sonnenstrasse, Munich, February 2017.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 07:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Entrance to building on Sonnenstraße 15, Munich.
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Entrance to building on Sonnenstraße 15, Munich; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Really excellent application of abstract techniques in modern architecture, and a fine picture. This stands out to me as particularly good, even among FP candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Als Münchnerin - ja! --Schnobby (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucasT 09:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High quality (but can you scrape the chewing gum off?) Charles (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and per Charles if possible. --cart-Talk 10:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info OK, I've swept the floor a bit - but I still wouldn't eat off it ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice unsymmetric symmetry! Unfortunately the NR is a bit visible. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though the NR is so strong that it almost looks like it came from a compact camera; sufficient quality nonetheless. -- King of ♠ 20:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per others although we maybe have a copyright issue here (no FoP for building interiors in Germany). --Code (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Many, if not most interiors on Commons may turn out to be problematic one way or the other. I don't know if that's a "mitigating factor" in my "case" but technically I didn't even leave public ground to take this picture... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, you know whom to call just in case ... --Code (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Sultan Mohammad Khodabanda Sahand Ace.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 06:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

FARAYDUN STRIKES ZAHHAK WITH THE OX-HEADED MACE Attributed to Sultan Muhammad Iran, Tabriz, Safavid period, ca. 1525 Opaque watercolor, ink, and gold on paper As predicted in Zahhak's dream, Faraydun pursues the tyrant
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded and nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 06:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sahand Ace 06:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Pretty small file. lNeverCry 07:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Small but beautiful, but yes, we prefer much bigger, super-high-resolution, detailed pictures of art. I still would support a feature of this, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image description page does not indicate a source. this version appears to have more detail and is certainly larger. Since it is possible that Commons has many tens of thousands of well-scanned artworks, surely FP requires we feature only the "finest". And for that, I would expect proper sourcing, high resolution/detail, and ideally an embedded colour profile to ensure the colours are correct. This image appears rather saturated compared to the link. -- Colin (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of date clock icon.svg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think you saw this message the last time you had three nominations going since Yann was so quick to fix things then and remove the message. You can not have more than two nominations going on at the same time. If you want this nomination to be opened, you have to withdraw one of the other two. You can also wait for the voting period for one of the other noms to end and then renominate this. --cart-Talk 10:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Shimla night.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of Shimla, India
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Perched on a hillside Shimla is the current capital and largest city of the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Previously it was capital of the Indian state of Punjab and, before independence, the summer capital of British India. Shimla is a major tourist destination owing to the large number of colonial buildings, temples, churches in the city, the UNESCO World Heritage Kalka-Shimla Railway, and the mild subtropical highland climate. All by me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo! So this is where the shot the backdrop for Blade Runner. --cart-Talk 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support After some days of waiting for the next wow - this is it! --PtrQs (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Impressive night photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ezarateesteban 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even though all the details are visible, the overall impression is too dark. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's actually a conscious choice as I don't believe HDR should be about flattening out the tones, rather about pulling the highlights and pushing the shadows while trying to keep the original tonal balance of the picture. But that's just me. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that overly aggressive HDR would not have helped here; I just think that the source material you worked with was too dark, and regardless of whether you tried to "fix" it in post or not, the lighting is still not featurable in my opinion. -- King of ♠ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, KoH, but I have long contended that magic hour pictures are not the only way to shoot night pictures and, depending on the scene, might not even be the best. I guess we agree to disagree on this point. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture for such a dark and humid night. How long was the exposure? WClarke 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1s + 4s + 15s, iso 200, f/8. Overall it's pretty close to the 4 sec exposures. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely colors and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Totally loved it. Great execution. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore

File:Detail van een met rijp bedekte eik (Quercus).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 16:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Familie: Fagaceae.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Detail of a frost-covered oak (Quercus) in the fog. For me the picture radiates calm. Trust. It will be fine. all by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty significant camera shake which was apparent to me even at preview size. It's a nice scene but even with VR/IS, it's very difficult to get acceptable sharpness with 1/13s handheld at 85mm. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with the other opposers... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Lanchonete frente da praça da Sé, São Paulo, Brasil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 12:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lanchonete frente da praça da Sé, São Paulo, Brasil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- The Photographer 12:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request although the pillar in the left is vertical, I feel a disturbing CCW tilt in this pic. Can this be fixed? --PtrQs (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too busy, lacks clear main subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea, but framing the photo with the menu and the green fruits is not doing the photo any favors, shielding the viewer from the shop. It would have been better if you had taken one step further in and shot just the area with the chairs around the counter. --cart-Talk 18:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to me the framing works well.--Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposes. To me, a classic example of a picture that saw a lot to do and tried to do it all. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Iridescent clouds during snowfall 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 11:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iridescent clouds during snowfall
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rainbow-colored/iridescent clouds during a snowfall over Lysekil, Sweden. The fringes of the clouds are so thin the water droplets in them produce rainbows. The photo is taken during some interesting weather in the afternoon so it is the sun you see and the dots are snowflakes. All by me -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My first thought was that maybe that's what happened last night in Sweden but then I saw the timestamp so we will have to do some more research. Regarding the picture I find it very good compositionally so Symbol support vote.svg Support from my side. --Code (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Face-grin.svg Thanks Code. Well what really happened in Sweden Friday night was that my cold got worse. Didn't think the White House would find out!! So sorry for causing this international incident... --cart-Talk 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile-big.svg Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moody and interesting. I like how the blotchy clouds over the disc of the sun sort of imitate the lunar maria. Or maybe that's just me, who knows? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is certainly a good photo, though I haven't decided yet whether to support a feature for it, but I prefer File:Crepuscular rays and iridescent clouds during snowfall.jpg, which has more snow and the dark trees as a dramatic contrast with the sky. Just sky is not quite as striking to me and gives me less grounding, literally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I like that pic very much too. Unfortunately, I think the cut sun in that will make it a no-go for the folks here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? I didn't realize there were objections to that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was one of the reasons it was decline at first at QIC where I took it to CR. Looking at past discussions people are generally opposed to things cut at the border of an image when it could have been avoided. The weather that day was very chaotic, clouds moving very fast in the strong wind and it was pure luck that the sun was even in that picture since I was mostly focusing on the rays. I thought the sun was totally hidden behind the cloud, but it broke through just as I pressed the button. --cart-Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you can stay out of the cold for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Brown-cheeked-fulvetta-from-kottayam-kerala.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 10:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not a FP, sorry, and to me it isn't an QI, either. The lighting is not good, the head is in shadow. Sharpness overall is acceptable but in the head below the bar, sorry. Poco2 10:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture taken early morning, actual lighting, got the feather details sharp so thought of nominating, is there a requirement that any particular parts should be sharp for birds for being nominated to be FP, i meant like head as mentioned in previous comment? Deepugn (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco. Sometimes, people have gotten away with the tail being unsharp, but not the head, and you should sign your post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment thank you, wanted to get the feedback, i hope you agreed with the lighting comment also. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want feedback, you should ask for that at Commons:Photography critiques or submit your photos to COM:QIC first where you will get that. FPC is for the finished photos, even if some things are changed here during discussions. When you present a photo here, it should already be as good as you can possibly get it. And as Ikan said; please sign your posts. --cart-Talk 11:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, i never knew about the critiques thing, think that will be a good place for my need. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. This had possibilities—the colors are nice, the light is appropriately soft—but the pose complicated things, and unfortunately that includes the DoF, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Larnaca 01-2017 img37 LCA Airport.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Larnaca International Airport, Cyprus: departure area
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like the long depth of field and the decorations (structural elements?) on the ceiling, and the light is pretty good for an airport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting motive, well balanced and implemented. The contrasts of warm and cold give the image a special touch. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An excellent perspective --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness overall just ok, nice ceiling, the rest nothing wild, too dark overall Poco2 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination. I for myself hesitated to suggest it, as I know airports with much more interesting iteriors. On the other hand, the picture is QI and it is almost impossible to create *perfect* photos of airport interiors, because, unlike Diliff's and Code's churches, they are never empty of people ;) -A.Savin 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Our churches are often busy, we just twist the truth by being highly selective about when to click the shutter. ;-) Diliff (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too boring for me. No wow. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Draceane – LucasT 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having taken a similar picture that is one of the QI examples now used for "depth of field", I salute this image as exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to achieve. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jamaican giant anole (Anolis garmani) juvenile.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 19:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A juvenile Jamaican giant anole (Anolis garmani)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This little lizard will grow to around 40cm, but for now it is 15cm long and happy to pose in a cut roadside bamboo, high in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO Chromatic noise, white aura around of the head, lack of DoF. I added notes --The Photographer 20:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a white glow above in the head exactly and forming the contour white like a white wind blowing over aligator face, this effect could be maybe the result of a wrong tecnique on the background layer in the noise reduction procedure --The Photographer 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No idea what you are talking about I'm afraid. I didn't use layers. Charles (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes It was a suposition, however, the problem still there. The main problem is noise and Lack of DoF --The Photographer 12:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, lack of DOF. – LucasT 08:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks overprocessed to me, see legs or the border of the bamboo Poco2 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Well, I thought it was cute! Charles (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it's a very cute image and I am a rectil lover. My comment was only about the image quality. Sorry --The Photographer 15:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Ahum... you might want to rephrase that... --cart-Talk 17:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
LOL @ -Talk, what if it is not a slip? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Procession during Easter Friday in Santa Ana Guanajuato.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 18:55:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and unique photograph of people, which I like to see on Commons. I personally like it in black and white; seeing the color version would ruin the photograph for me. In addition to that, though others may disagree, I like the grain because it seems to makes it feel more raw or gritty. The higher ISO (1600) used is also more unique when compared to other featured pictures, and in this case is used well. WClarke 19:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Unique image, however, strong noise --The Photographer 20:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Technical perfection is not always necessary nor needed. Photography is a language in itself, and as in language, correct grammar is not always necessary to convey a message. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not technical perfection, all the images should be valued coldly without taking circumstantial factors. Using a good camera and lens is important, for example. You can not take a photo with a compact camera and say it is the best quality the camera can do. Sadly, everyone here is judged equally. And I say sadly because there are countries where FP will never come because it is impossible for their citizens to buy a DSLR or a good compact camera. In your case, you use a DSLR, however, with a technique that is possible to improve, in my humble opinion (My vote is not Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose how you can see). --The Photographer 12:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with WClarke on this one. It is such a strong photo that the graininess lends an even more documentary quality to it and matches the darkness in the photo. --cart-Talk 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is this a contemporary image converted to B/W? Then I've to agree with The Photographer, the noise is too high for FP Poco2 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, I guess 2015 can be considered contemporary... But I strongly disagree that noise is too high for FP. First of all, nowhere in the book says that noise cannot be present in an image, or that it is a requirement for FP. Noise is the result of several factors, one of them being high ISO. High ISO is the result of light conditions, and you either take the image with correct exposure in natural light, which in this case lent itself to the overall aspect, or you take it with flash and eliminate the dramatic contrast, or you don´t take the picture at all. As I said above, photography is a language, and as such, it has wide latitude as a form of expression. In this case, noise is a result of light conditions that necessitated the use of high ISO. I have always, and always will disagree with the pixel counters in this forum that put superficial form over depth. Imagine if Robert Capa #REDIRECT[[1]] were to upload his famous image #REDIRECT[[2]] to this forum, or if someone did it for him; under common practices here the image would never make it! Grainy, soft, cut off, not large enough, out of focus, etc., etc. Human events are phenomenological in nature, they flow like a river, never repeat themselves, and good photography, even if it lacks technical perfection, captures the essence of the phenomena regardless of technical perfection. What is a beautiful flower without aroma? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Your point is well taken, and technical perfection is certainly not needed, but what would the drawback of just a bit of noise reduction be? Would it adversely affect the picture in some way? Please explain because I'm not so knowledgeable about such things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • One thing that would happen if you applied NR on this level of graininess, is that you would loose all detail in the veils, hair and eyes on the women in the photo. You would also loose the documentary feel and the photo would look strange with all that smoothness. --cart-Talk 19:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed that the grain is necessary for the documentary-feeling to it, along with making it more somber and serious. This same effect seems to be done more commonly in photojournalism, as can be seen in the winners of the World Press Photo of the Year in both 2016 and 2009. The photograph that won in 2016 had an ISO of 6400, which brought significant grain, though turned out with great results. It seems that in digital photography grain and noise are often automatically looked down upon, and any potential artistic effect is overlooked. There is a difference between careless noise in a photograph, and noise in a photograph to achieve a dramatic effect. And IMO the latter is the case here. Thanks. WClarke 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also see these two photos also from World Press Photo that are both recent and use a similar effect: 2016 and 2017. Thanks. WClarke 20:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support E-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t! Once again Tomas shows us what peoples photography is really about. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nicely executed in B/W. You get a feel -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Airbus A350-941 F-WWCF MSN002 ILA Berlin 2016 17.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Airbus A350-941 (reg. F-WWCF, MSN 002) in Airbus promotional CFRP livery at ILA Berlin Air Show 2016.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n — Julian H. 13:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 13:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ezarateesteban 14:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Many of airplane photos are rather boring, but this one certainly not. Really good timing, composition, and light. --A.Savin 14:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per A.Savin: I'm not easily wowed by (pictures of) airliners, but this one's just excellent. Looks like a landing rather than a take-off to me? Might want to add that to the description … --El Grafo (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I added the fact that it's a takeoff to the description. — Julian H. 18:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per others. --Code (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, this picture has a excellent quality --The Photographer 21:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucasT 22:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh yes! --cart-Talk 23:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a very attractive picture WClarke 23:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An excellent sharp focus to the aeroplane --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot! --Gyrostat (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I have to agree with the others. This is a great shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done technically --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ceiling light fixture in Hofstatt Mall, Munich, February 2017.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceiling light fixture in Hofstatt Mall, Munich
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan; couldn't help noting that it made me think of File:Lamps EM Belysning Viborg Denmark 2016-12-30-.jpg post by Slaunger several weeks back. WClarke 23:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 23:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I actually like this much more than Slaunger's because of the unity of form of the lights, which contrasts nicely with their very different perspectives and material. As Ikan notes, it's actually quite calming to look at. There are some blown areas, but this is forgivable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Famagusta 01-2017 img10 Carmelite Church.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Famagusta, Cyprus: ruin of Carmelite Church in the walled city

File:Indian-lotus-kottayam-kerala.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 08:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 1, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 07:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Trinity Chapel (Lady Chapel) of Salisbury Cathedral in Wiltshire, England

File:Бандери 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 19:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Transmission towers in the National Park Pelister, Macedonia
  • ✓ Done The tilt has been fixed so that the first tower is now centred.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No, the tilt is not fixed. It is titled about 2.15° CCW. The clouds at the horizon should be horizontal. And as the power line poles are most probably vertical, there is also perspective distortion. I made a tentative correction, but it should preferably be down from RAW: File:Бандери 2015 (edit).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral pending correction pointed out by Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Miniature pasted on cardboard. “Karim Khan Zand with the Ottoman Ambassador Vehbi Effendi”. Attributed to Abu’l Hasan Mustawfi Iran; 1775- Sahand Ace.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 13:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The founder of the Zand dynasty, Karim Khan (1750-1779), is portrayed as a powerful ruler, while the Ottoman ambassador who visited Shiraz in 1775 is suitably obsequious. The bearded ruler, who never adopted the title of king, is seated with a bouquet of flowers and his cup of wine, wearing a fur-trimmed caftan of Persian brocade and the kind of hat that was used under both the Afsharids and the Zand dynasty. The painting was later attributed correctly to Abu’l Hasan Mustawfi, an artist who had also served for many years as a provincial governor and was moreover a respected historian. The dating 1161 H (1749-1750), however, is incorrect. Abu’l Hasan’s first known painting was actually from 1775, the year of the ambassador’s visit.
@W.carter: I fixed it-- Sahand Ace 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This looks like a faithful representation of an artwork that needs restoration. I'm having trouble with the idea of supporting it for a feature because of the degree of damage that is restorable (unlike a ruin of a church or a sculpture of a figure from ancient Greece that no longer has arms or legs). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:120 inch HDPE pipe installation.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 05:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 07:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the frame within a frame, and the silhouettes of the men working on the distant pipe. -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 10:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A picture that's worth to enlarge! --PtrQs (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a great photo that looks like a vinyl record from a distance until you see the people in the middle. dllu (t,c) 02:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting, I saw it was a 35mm, I wonder what would be the result when taken by far but with a 200mm and crushing perspective. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Christian Ferrer, good point... Whenever possible, I back away as much as I can and start with the longest zoom and walk my way in... I did exactly what you say, but my lens was only 135mmm (216 mm full frame equivalent) and got pretty good result. I just uploaded those versions here #REDIRECT[[3]] and here #REDIRECT[[4]]. The reason I chose the one nominated is because a shorter focal length game me more DoF and altered the proportion in order to get more pipe wall (with longer focal length the inner wall shrinks) and get an idea of longer distance. The next pipe is about 100 meters away. In this case is a matter of preference. Thanks for your comment and support. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Robin Hood made right in the center of the target :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Artistic. Very good job. Cute. Lyric photography IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks sort of like HAL, but with different colors, when seen at thumb size. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Facade of the Palace Hotel, San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Facade of the Palace Hotel, a designated San Francisco landmark
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since walls like this are used to test lenses for distortion, I can't help but notice it isn't perfectly regular. Do you have a lens profile you can apply in your raw conversion software? Have you considered making a b&w version -- the lighting isn't a feature here, nor the sky interesting, and you are left with a study of patterns and form, which works well in b&w. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have the lens distortion profile. I have either forgotten to apply it or there is some residual perspective distortion on the left side. Anyhow, the distortion is extremely small, much less than Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg which has several supports even though it has a large amount of barrel distortion, especially visible in the bottom corners. Compared to that nomination, this photo also has similar lighting and a vastly more architecturally significant, interesting building. dllu (t,c) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm just being picky. Not an oppose reason. I haven't really decided if there's enough wow here for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've just replaced the image with the version with lens correction profiles. It should be well corrected now. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Boring. Charles (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Facade of the Palace Hotel, a designated San Francisco landmark
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Monochrome version. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Crosswalk of Market at Third, San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A pedestrian crossing in San Francisco, viewed from above.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Absolutely YES! KennyOMG (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't get what's featurable about this. It's a crosswalk with some lines in the street. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I nominated this picture because, in my opinion, the strong diagonal lines gives a striking geometric quality to the iamge. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not exactly Shibuya crossing. The grey overcast weather and the lack of traffic or pedestrians mean this photo doesn't have the necessary spark or life. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I intentionally selected this image out of dozens to have less traffic. It is too visually cluttered to have this intersection full of random cars. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The shapes and lines make this image very appealing, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shapes and lines. The light gives the photo a gritty NYPD Blue feeling. Not all FPs need to be some manicured Technicolor version of Legoland. --cart-Talk 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not my point at all. Gritty can be good, but it's very hard for the mundane to wow me. This doesn't look like New York to me, though: We haven't had any trolleys for decades (since the 1950s, I think - my parents remembered them but they didn't exist in my lifetime). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think hisher point was more about the aesthetic of NYPD Blue rather than literally being in New York itself. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That would be her point. But NYPD Blue was about New York, not San Francisco. As a New Yorker who's also spent a good deal of time in San Francisco, I'm probably too close to both objects to really be able to understand the broad scope of what she means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Who's 'she', the cat's mother? Face-wink.svg Well, dllu you are absolutely right. I was talking about the feel of a city you get when you watch that TV-show. Ikan, you are taking things far too literary sometimes. I know that I should refrain from speaking metaphorically when describing the mood in photos, but sometimes it is what best describes the feeling I get for a pic. Have you ever been to a wine tasting Ikan? At such events they can speak of the the wine's "nutty flavor with earthy tones and a hint of licorice" to describe the taste of the wine even though there are no nuts, soil or licorice in the actual wine. Using films, songs and TV-series to describe moods in photos work along the same line. Also, please keep in mind that I'm Swedish, and even though I've been to both New York and San Francisco and know they are two very different cities, to me this photo (and NYPD Blue) simply looks "American". I'm sure you could make the same sort of generalization wrt Stockholm and Gothenburg, and simply see them as "Swedish" even if trams are more common in Gothenburg. --cart-Talk 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't been to Sweden yet. But you basically said the same thing as I: I'm too close to the objects to see the panoramic view you see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed a very different take, one that made me stop and take notice when I was scrolling through new nominations. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You have to give a reason for opposing. Is being different the reason for the oppose? dllu (t,c) 20:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry ... I had meant to type support. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a messy composition. Charles (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful photograph. WClarke 20:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't why....but i like the composition,isn't messy for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Super interesting perspective and composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Funchal Jardim Monte 2016 7.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 21:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gardens on Madeira island
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but for me this is a snapshot, not a FP. --PtrQs (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are probably a number of good things to photograph on this location, but this is too unsharp and the composition is not good. --cart-Talk 10:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You know you've been doing this too long when your first reaction to seeing that patch of blue in the upper right was to try to find the curves panel ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Karelj (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 10.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 16:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Footbrigde in Vic-la-Gardiole
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All be me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry - generically pretty countryside, but this composition doesn't make much of an impression on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I kind of like it, but I think the impact of the pathway would be better if the photo was cropped just where it ceases to be seen (+ a clean cut between the trees). That way it looks like it went on forever. I'll make a note. --cart-Talk 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion W.carter, but I don't know... it's true that the image is more centered on the subject, and this is not a bad idea but this change not a lot the image, so I prefer to keep the space and this aspect ratio Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh well, you can't get everything in life. :) It's a good pic anyway. --cart-Talk 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition, light, landscape - everything is beautiful here. The DoF could be somewhat better but I know that's getting difficult at 70mm. Nice lens, btw. --Code (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 07:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although cart's suggested crop couldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 16:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely composition with the bridge and the river in parallel,more the sunset light. Adorable. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Japan tea ceremony 1165.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 13:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Japanese tea ceremony
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are some very minor flaws in this, but taken as a whole, the photo is serene and simply beautiful! -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cart. Also a powerful reminder of my own inability to sit in seiza for more than 2 minutes ;) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Dull light. Maybe the specialness of this photo is lost on me, but what I see is a very dark bokehish background to a drably lit scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 07:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Serene, yes, and I love the color, but those three red things in the back make it a little too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Ikan. You were right. I changed some things a bit which didn´t find perfect.--Ermell (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: Thanks for the fixing. The 'ping' system doesn't work the same way here as it does on Twitter (the way you wrote just "@Ikan") so I will ping him here (@Ikan Kekek:) in the way that will get him the message. Look at the code in the editing window and you will see how it is done. --cart-Talk 15:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better. Moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best quality, but good composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:12 Abu'l Hasan Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 08:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abu'l Hasan. Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Abu'l Hasan - uploaded by Eugene a - nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, but to my understanding, this photo should be deleted from Commons. See the "rights statement" here: "Copyright with museum". And if you click "terms of use", you'll see that only non-commercial use is allowed without special permission: "To request images and rights for commercial use, please contact reprorights@si.edu. To request images and rights for the press, please contact pressasia@si.edu. For full legal details, please see the Smithsonian’s terms of use for digital assets." Since Commons uses a Creative Commons Copyleft that enables free commercial or non-commercial use with credit, these terms are not compatible with this project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    This is covered by {{PD-ART}}. The WMF's position is "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". These sites try to be greedy with their licensing, but Commons offers them the middle-finger salute. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice to see something different. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - INeverCry, thanks for talking me through that. I guess more knowledgeable legal minds than I have examined U.S. laws and casework and determined that a lawsuit by the Smithsonian wouldn't be successful. That being the case: Judging the photo on its merits, it is unsurprisingly an excellent photo, and this is a beautiful Mughal painting in very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ikan Kekek that is in many museums, wannabe "copyright". If this is from 1620 no question about legal right. Wondering how can museums etc are allowed to put such "copyright notice". Its not legal, but i saw many. --Mile (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The copyright is on the photograph, not the artwork itself. Art photography is a real skill, as we all know. The question of whether the copyright has the force of law is the one I don't know the answer to, but haven't some art photographers sued on the basis that their work was being used without any kind of royalties or even credit being given? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: The biggest threatened lawsuit Commons has encountered was from the NPG London (see User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage). WMF backed up Derrick and said they didn't consider Sweat of the brow an acceptable policy and were confident a suit by the NPG would be unsuccessful in the US. This came after a mass transfer of NPG images by Derrick, who is based in the bay area. A British citizen or company might not have fared so well against the NPG. lNeverCry 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apartments of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by User:Dllu - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very good Alvesgaspar/The Photographer-style work by Dllu. A tad soft at full size, but full size is about as big as you could get without severely violating residents' privacy, and I really enjoy looking around the form of the photograph and its many differences within a theoretically uniformly boxy structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucasT 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It look like a voyeur picture performed by myself --The Photographer 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Interesting. Have you made such comments before when similar photos were up for discussion at FPC? If not, what's different this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have commented on privacy issues several times before (and see current FPC). Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[5] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [6]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the mature discussion. Charles (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • dllu, what do you mean about the field of view being similar to that of the human eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Where could you get this clear a view of bedrooms with a naked eye? Is the view this clear from across the street? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This was taken from 100 Van Ness Ave, a high rise residential building right across the street. dllu (t,c) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And is the view just as clear from there with the naked eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [7]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [8]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [9]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that the freedom of speech and to express yourself can be used in much better ways than to point a lens into unsuspecting people's bedrooms. --cart-Talk 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo[edit]

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I will duly Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain now. Lmbuga: Not nominating or supporting this picture for a feature in no way denies dllu freedom of expression. You'd have a stronger case if the photo were nominated for deletion and deleted, but even then, it would be a matter of policy rather than a way to prevent him from taking the photo and posting it elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg, 360x180, 160427, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spherical panorama of the Sacred Heart Church (Herz-Jesu-Kirche) in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg.
  • And with this technology, not so many 2D church interiors are going to get FP status. Isn't there a way to show the image in 2D better than this rather weird construction whcih puts me off? Charles (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Charles, generally these images are shot with an ultra-wide angle lens or a fisheye lens, and aren't nearly as detailed as we have come to expect from the stitched images such as Diliff's, which might be shot with a 50mm lens. I think there's room for both kind of image on Commons. These images are best enjoyed interactively, and that is certainly educational, but have limited use for single frame or print purposes. I think we'll continue to feature lots of 2D church interiors. Compare the level of detail in File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Innenraum, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg, 150806, ako.jpg, which is also deserving of FP imo. -- Colin (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 10:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How are these images made ? Certainly not consumable in print format/and can be made sense only with an interactive viewer, and Commons require images that can be seen or printed, right? This feels like a video in the interactive viewer, are these getting FP nominations now ? May be, then the FPC text should be updated. Just, IMHO -- Dey.sandip (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Dey.sandip They are made by stitching together many individual photos using a tool like Hugin or PtGui and choosing an equilateral projection, while ensuring the vertical covers 180° and the horizontal 360°. Currently the viewer is experimental tool at wmflabs but the plan is to integrate this into Wikipedia just like viewing a video is integrated into Wikipedia. So they aren't much different to video - a special viewer is required. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dey.sandip: We've already featured a lot of these. I think the educational value of such 3D pictures is extremely high. It gives you a full impression of a building and makes distances and proportions visible in a way a 2D picture never could. I think we should strongly encourage people to create and upload much more of these pictures. Of course that doesn't mean that any of these should be promoted FP but on the other hand why shouldn't the better ones be FP as well as any good 2D picture? --Code (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Flagellum base diagram en.svg (delist), not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 05:43:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The accuracy has been disputed since 2012 (see discussion at talk), and while I'm not familiar enough with the subject to offer an informed opinion about the dispute, we shouldn't have something on the featured list if it has a longstanding accuracy dispute. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. lNeverCry 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nominator. --Cayambe (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom and User:Leprof 7272's remark on the file's talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Haßberge Scheune 5153908.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Barn located between Weisbrunn and Oberaurach
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some weeks ago on QI. I like this colourful image and I hope that six or seven more persons like it, too... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice! --cart-Talk 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The town where I come 90 % of the houses look like this, I'm only explaining why it's not wow for me. --The Photographer 10:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most of the building is hidden and if that was intentional, the idea doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It was the "yin and yang" pattern of the green and yellow around the building that struck me as significant. This is the sort of photo where you can choose to see the center or the surroundings. --cart-Talk 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good image! Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - With blocks of almost solid color, I don't find that this picture is really that rewarding to move my eye around (you could think of it this way: it lacks the linear arabesque that I like to see in 2D static visual art, which gives it a feeling of dynamism). That said, if the yellow flowers were only beyond the house, I think the pure visual impact of that division would cause the photo to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Comercio en la plaza del 9 de abril de 1947, Tánger, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 77.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spices and food store in the April 9th 1947 Square, better known as Grand Socco, Tangier, Morocco.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Grocery and grocery shop in the April 9th 1947 Square, better known as Grand Socco, Tangier, Morocco. All by me, Poco2 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wasn't wowed until I opened this at full size and smelled the spices and the musty old wood in the shop. :) --cart-Talk 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice documentary work --The Photographer 10:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting and composition - just look at the red thing in the foreground. Charles (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per cart and The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Charles, poor light conditions. No FP for me. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Barely Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm really torn because this is a good portrait of a shopkeeper at his store, and the light conditions are what they are and give the photo a realism I can accept. But what really distracts me is precisely the red plastic thing in front. It spoils the symmetry of the spice bins. In the end, as much as I like this photo, when I think about whether it's really one of the best photos on the site, I reluctantly demur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So, when a photographer barges into a store in Tangier, he should bring his own lighting equipment and ask the owner to rearrange the items in the shop so that the photo will be more aesthetically pleasing for a bunch of picky westerners, rather than documentary? --cart-Talk 13:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course not, but if you were to barge into a store and take a snap-shot, don't expect to become an FP. 11:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - High-quality work with plenty of illustrative value. One little plastic device at the edge of the frame can't ruin the whole thing. Real life, alas, isn't always tidy or "symmetrical." –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Montes de Vitoria - Quercus ilex 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Holm oak (Quercus Ilex Ilex) near Pagogan summit. Montes de Vitoria mountain range, Spain
  • ✓ Done I should have seen this, sorry. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PtrQs (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful lighting and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice one. --Code (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image, though I would crop 15% off the bottom and 5% off the top. Charles (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer it, Thanks. Charles (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tree against landscape ... doesn't always work as well as we'd like to think when taking the picture, but this time it does. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 18:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info First sunbeams sweep over a winter landscape. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really like your early sunrise hoar frost images a lot and it reminds me that I should get up earlier myself for shooting but this one doesn't convince me as a FP, sorry. The middle tree which seems to be the main subject results in a too centred composition and it covers the water behind which could be interesting or not but at least would give a bit more depth. And I would prefer that there wouldn't be these cut-off branches on the right. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lovely scene, but per Basotxerri – LucasT 22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Basotxerri. lNeverCry 06:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose per Basotxerri. I don't mind the framing with the trees but the diagonal slice of road is unfortunately counterproductive. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Question: this picture is better? Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 01.jpg--Famberhorst (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Alternative, another version.[edit]

Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 01.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info First sunbeams sweep over a winter landscape. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by Famberhorst
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 Smog nad Nową Rudą.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 15:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Smog over Nowa Ruda
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Good documentation of an unnatural phenomenon, but not so beautiful, in my opinion. I think that "Nowa Ruda, view with smog" might be a good scope for a VI nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I changed category. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually, it is a natural phenomenon—see temperature inversion. I've seen it often in winter in similar situations, usually a bluish haze over some ski village where a lot of fireplaces are being used. This looks to me almost like coal was being burned in a lot of the village? Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Inversions are a natural phenomenon, but smog is not. Now, if this were a picture of vog (volcanic fog) over the Big Island of Hawaii, that would be a different story. Of course that's a side point. You and the others are wowed by the picture, and that's what counts most. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: It's fair to say that the smog is an unnatural phenomenon resulting from the naturally occurring inversion layer. Whatever. You're right that the only thing the matters is that we like or don't like the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Пелистер 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 13:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winter scene near Pelister (2,601 m)
  • Looking at the page history the comment was made by KennyOMG. Signatures can sometimes turn out faulty. --cart-Talk 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose B&W can make some photos more interesting but this is unfortunately not the case here. The loss of color doesn't add anything to this picture. B&W is also a totally different technique, most of the times you need some contrast and light adjustment after removing the color. --cart-Talk 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Cart, I too thought it was b&w but actually there is a little colour on their jackets. Btw, the photo is in AdobeRGB colourspace, which isn't suitable for web images. -- Colin (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Colin, I was under the impression that AdobeRGB is fine if it is tagged and using modern browser (testing this here: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html), is AdobeRGB really still bad on the web nowadays? – Lucas 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Colin, I stand corrected. I didn't look at the colourspace and thought it was just a bad BW conversion. It doesn't alter my non-wow-y feeling for the photo though. --cart-Talk 22:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
See User:Colin/BrowserTest. Modern desktop browsers are all colour managed wrt the JPG if there is an embedded colour profile. Articles such as the one you link unhelpfully use the word "tagged" but in fact EXIF tags indicating the colour space are totally ignored by all browsers: only the embedded profile matters. However, in an 8-bit JPG, using AdobeRGB will require a conversion to sRGB to display on 99% of desktop monitors, which runs a risk of causing posterisation in colour graduations such as the sky or on skin tones. It is intended as a profile for sending to a print shop because it better captures some of the colours that CMYK can print. Most people using AdobeRGB have read somewhere it has "more colours" (it doesn't, it has the same number of colours as sRGB, just covering a wider gamut) but since >99% of people have sRGB monitors, most people picking this profile cannot actually view these more vivid colours themselves. It was never intended as a shared display profile and is not recommended for web use. Mobile browsers are not colour managed (though someone told be the latest iPhone might be). Since mobile traffic is now at least as significant as desktop traffic in terms of numbers, and only growing, this remains a problem. Users on the mobile browsers that are not colour managed will see the wrong colours. Cart my colourspace comment wasn't really related to the desaturated/b&w confusion. Just something I spotted when looking at the EXIF to see if the file had been desaturated somewhat. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah! And here I thought it had some nifty function so you could see if a photo was in RGB or greyscale. --cart-Talk 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Cart, if the photo had genuinely been saved as a greyscale JPG then yes the EXIF would likely indicate that. But not many professional image programs even offer that option, and I think many b&w photos are actually colour JPGs. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The spot color (sort of) was a nice surprise. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Works very well visually but the colourspace issue should be fixed. --Code (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless the image is still available as a raw file, and can be re-exported as an sRGB JPG, I wouldn't recommend changing the colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It isn't really wowing me. The footsteps idea is a common one and I'm puzzled at the choice of landscape aspect ratio here. It is just a bit too dull and murky and not dramatic enough for me. And the colour on the jackets isn't vivid enough to be a spot highlight. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition (footsteps). Charles (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think the image would be realistic without the footsteps. They clearly show that the mountaineers have passed through the snow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course the footprints are key. I didn't make myself clear, sorry. I think they would be better going on a diagonal. 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, at least for the moment. I actually like the composition, but it looks under-exposed to me. In a scene like this, where you have snow with strong sunlight you would expect at least some areas that are close to pure white, but there's plenty of space left on the right side of the histogram. EXIF data suggests that it was shot with an exposure compensation of -1/3 EV, while you'd normally compensate into the other direction for snowy landscapes. Easily fixed in post even from the JPG version, but I'd prefer it to be done by the author based on the RAW file. Maybe even pull down the shadows a bit, it's a pretty high-contrast scene after all. Personally, I'd also go for a pure b&w version, as that little bit of colour doesn't really add anything other than distraction to the image (for me). --El Grafo (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Weld Jallaba Show 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 11:00:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Weld Jallaba Show by the artist and dancer Rochdi Belgasmi I am nominating it for FP due to the fact that it shows that dancers paint with their bodies and because it is like a cyclone of dance.
  • Thanks, I'll support this as soon as eyes and crop are fixed. --cart-Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with cart. This would be a good example of "rear-curtain sync" in the Flash synchronization article on WP. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Waiting on the eyes to be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you IssamBarhoumi for fixing the eyes but there is still too much dark space above the dancer's head for my taste. It needs to be cropped. --cart-Talk 10:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's fine now. These things should have been taken care of at QIC, but things do get missed there from time to time. --cart-Talk 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very interesting: You captured motion in a still photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea, but the face is not sharp enough - and the whites of the eyes are still red. Charles (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Industrilandskapet Norrköping February 2017.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 09:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Norrköping
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The river Motala ström and the historic industrial district (known as Industrilandskapet) in Norrköping, Sweden. Industrilandskapet is a well-preserved industrial area, the industrial development started in the 17th century and carried on through to the middle of the 20th century, and a number of woollen spinning mills and cotton factories were established.
  • Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can't help thinking that this would have been better in color, the buildings are not interesting enough for a BW conversion. --cart-Talk 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Mild support I too wonder what a color version would look like, but in grayscale I'm just blown away by the perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very impressive view. I think the b/w conversion works well in this case although I'm also curious how the coloured version looks like. --Code (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd be interested to see a color version, but in my case, I think it's an idle curiosity, as I'm happy to accept the photo as is. I think using black & white helps accentuate the industrial character of the buildings and the industrial use of the watercourse. And what makes the photo special to me is the long depth of field looking down the watercourse and the plunging reflections of every structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:The triumph of french painting The apotheosis of Poussin,Le Sueur and Le Brune - Louvre.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 08:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Excellent painting art work, however, the quality of this shot doesn't honor to the painting. Satured colors that result in too yellow temperature, lack of details (Have you tried build it from the RAW? and not use just the camera internal building). Also extreme lens distortion in corners, a common problem already commented an others nominations. Btw, Remember that it's only MHO --The Photographer 11:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I sincerely don't understand what you mean for "MHO". --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On colors and the details even don't answer because it is personal matter, on "distortions" I'll note that it is a roof is curved there some problems to straighten it, like this[10]. Thank you --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are someone's fingers near the right lower corner --PtrQs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per PtrQs --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • ✓ DonePtrQs,Martin Falbisoner I honestly do not ever put an opposition to something that is easily solved, however, each one has its own way. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing that; I'm also fine with the tighter crop. Of course I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my intervention, but as those ghostly fingers were still fumbling at this QI, I couldn't ignore them Face-smile.svg Symbol support vote.svg Support --PtrQs (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment PtrQs i don't said that you must ignore,simply ask to resolve and not oppose. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Catedral de la Dormición de la Madre de Dios, Varna, Bulgaria, 2016-05-27, DD 109-111 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 22:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna, Bulgaria.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna, Bulgaria. The temple is the largest and most famous Bulgarian Orthodox cathedral in the Bulgarian Black Sea port city of Varna, and the second largest in Bulgaria (after cathedral Alexander Nevski in Sofia). Officially opened in 1886, it's the residence of the bishopric of Varna and Preslav and one of the symbols of Varna. All by me, Poco2 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent and beautiful. Btw, it's interesting that you keep referring to churches as temples - which strikes me as rather unusual (due to major theological differences between these two terms). Afaik only the Spanish language uses "templo" in a Christian context. Well, rather off-topic and of no further importance here, just an observation of mine... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know much Magyar, but I do recall that the Magyar word for church is "templom". So that's at least one more language.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I added a note, it's tilt in CW direction --The Photographer 10:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    The Photographer: I've uploaded a new version to improve the symmetry --Poco2 21:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks, ok now --The Photographer 10:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You will have to correct colors and CA (yellow and purple on windows). HDR is killing nice fresco colors of church. I dont see what are HDR exsposures. Composition isnt lucky, main objects to focus is probably line between two columns, and Jesus is covered with wire. --Mile (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid that for me the wires and lights are just too intrusive for FP. And Mile's "Jesus is covered with wire" is the worst of it. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sahand Ace 12:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Jesus won't approve of this. – LucasT 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ok, this is one of the top three most bizarre comments I've seen here! Face-surprise.svg --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As this wire is installed horizontally, there is no chance to avoid it without loosing symmetry. Therefore I would trust in Jesus' mercy. --PtrQs (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Here is what you got in less than a minute of work link --Mile (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Jesus wouldn't still be happy :) --Poco2 19:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • He might, if you will push harder. --Mile (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Juan Carlos Lentijo & Ikuo Izawain (02813332).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 15:31:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

IAEA expert team visited TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Greg Webb / IAEA, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would not have thought to nominate this one, but since 2 persons suggested it... -- Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't find the image exciting or special on its own, disregarding the situation in history. I don't see this fit as a FP. Obscured workers, boring lighting, reflections on the visors. – LucasT 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support since I'm one of the two people who yapped about it below. I do very much like the contrast between the bland tones of the lab and the bright yellow and hot pink of the hats and masks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I supported the other one because the people are shown in the midst of visible damage. This could be any control room anywhere. lNeverCry 23:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the other pic show the people in context, this one is just an almost amusing not too good photo of people in colorful protective gear. That sort of counteracts the seriousness of the situation. Judging this as any photo of folks in a control room, it is a bad composition with a partial pink blob and yellow helmet on one side and the rest of the image cropped at random. --cart-Talk 23:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Might be a significant picture, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree the magenta blob on the bottom right is unfortunate, but cropping that out would lose the guy on the right. Wrt "This could be any control room anywhere", well there aren't many control rooms in the world where you need to wear full body protective gear and an IAEA badge. So I think this could easily well illustrate any article written about the accident. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - That seems like a good argument for some kind of VI (not sure what the precise scope would be). Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Archon apollinus - False apollo, Adana 2017-02-11 01-3.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 08:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A male beautiful false apollo (Archon apollinus bellargus). Adana, Turkey.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - They look like great details to me, but you're an expert on butterflies and butterfly photography and I'm not. Zeynel, do you have a comment about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I'm not an expert on butterflies, I think the delicate composition and colors are exquisite. --cart-Talk 13:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And 7... --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely neutral tones. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong color temperature; These are not these natural colors. Easy to correct --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2017 -- 6389.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 19:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Detail of the sculpture “Body and Soul” (Duk-Kyu Ryang, 2015) in front of the office building of the LVM, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not sure, but let's try it. It's just a detail of the sculpture, glass with air bubbles and Water droplets. -- XRay talk 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, I like this piece of abstract photography. --cart-Talk 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose. Sadly I have no hard arguments against this, but my main thoughts were: 0. it doesn't speak to me as being a special photo on its own 1. It falls short on the value aspect (being a crop of a larger thing), 2. same with wow, 3. There is no clear composition, it looks just randomly cropped (to be fair, there can be thought put into it, it's just hard to show), 4. IMO it would be weird to feature a small part of a sculpture if there could be done much more with that sculpure put in the frame as a whole. – LucasT 20:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but I'm missing the sculpture. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not clear subject --Ezarateesteban 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To my eyes it is an artistic image. And I do appreciate this kind of photos quite a lot. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Johann and Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't find it artistic. Charles (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid it isn't doing anything for me. The sculpture as a whole is interesting art already. I like this crop, though the top right is weak. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Were it not for that joint running through the middle, I would probably have joined cart in supporting it for its pleasant, ambient, abstract qualities à la a Cocteau Twins album cover. But that thick curved line ruins the abstraction for me. Daniel Case (talk)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't find it artistic. --Karelj (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:IAEA Experts at Fukushima (02813336).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 18:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

IAEA Experts at Fukushima
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Greg Webb / IAEA, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is certainly no time to pose, so quite good quality. High educational value, showing the working conditions, and the environment with the damaged building in the background. Please notice that this image is used in many places on the Internet. -- Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. Very good picture under very adverse and historically significant circumstances. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one has some bonus for ER. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope you mean "EV" as in Educational Value, "ER" usually means something else even if such facilities certainly were involved in the accident. --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't think this is anything special. The composition, framing and posing are all weak, nor is it clear where they are. This photo from the set is far superior IMO, clearly showing a control room of some facility, and some seriously flurorescent air filters! -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. This to me looks like what a news outlet's photo editor would want from one of their photographers, but the conditions under which it was taken notwithstanding that does not make it an FP. If it were the iconic picture of the incident, yes maybe for historical value (it may be widely reproduced online, but this is the first time I've seen it) but since it isn't, I oppose. The one Colin points to is, indeed, better. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support KennyOMG (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. This is related to an important event, but it just shows the experts leaving - not at work. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Uoaei1 – LucasT 08:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Savanna hawk (Buteogallus meridionalis).JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 17:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Savanna hawk (Buteogallus meridionalis)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info These hawks would normally fly off when perched just 1.5m off the ground, but our car acted as a hide. It is about 60cm (24") tall. Created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - I don't like the dull light much, but I do like the tough and good-looking hawk. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support here too. Good-looking bird but I'm not wild about the background colors or the light. --cart-Talk 10:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Usually the wow-y photos grow on me as I look at them again after voting. Unfortunately, this one has not done so, rather the opposite so I'm moving to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Sorry. --cart-Talk 23:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull lighting and a man-made perch. I'm not wowed by this. lNeverCry 23:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2017 photo call Egon Schiele Tod und Mädchen Valerie Pachner 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 15:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Actress Valerie Pachner at the Austrian Film Awards 2017
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Tsui -- Tsui (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tsui (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great portrait. Yann (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, seeing this photo at QIC was how I first came to notice your very good portraits, but the light in this and several of the other photos from that event is a bit unfortunate. The shadow around her left eye looks like she's got a black eye, so in the end I chose two other portraits. --cart-Talk 15:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shot too wide, and her right arm is making me feel this is bodybuilding shot. Could be a stop lower.--Mile (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC) p.S. Crop ?
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, useful bodybuilding shot. --A.Savin 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cart and Mile. lNeverCry 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per cart and Mile. If you needed to use the fast ISO to get this image I can understand, but do be aware that it's likely to come with a lot of noise and thus not make it as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment on the discussion page, if anyone is interested. --Tsui (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think this photo has character. And is this really noisy? If you look at the photo at full size, you can see the peach fuzz around her lips - that's a very high degree of closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you can see that detail on the face, but the bokeh is noisier than some of the other portraits from this event taken under the same conditions. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the quality of the photo is certainly great, I totally agree about that. I think that if the photographer had been able to choose the light, it would have been just as good. Sadly some production company made that setting. --cart-Talk 10:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Hackerbrücke Munich 2014 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 13:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hackerbrücke (Hacker bridge), Munich, Germany.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Picture from WLM 2015, c/u/n by me. — Julian H. 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Excellent picture, and I'm tempted to support it weakly at the moment, but it bugs me that the right crop cuts into a mast. I assume there's no way to add the remainder of the mast to the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • There is a building that starts exactly at the current crop, in-between the tracks, unfortunately. Since that's basically black, it really ruins that edge. — Julian H. 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Julian, I uploaded a crop and nominated it as an alternative. I can't quite follow your explanation with the "ruined edge" and how you would feel about cropping. I can't see any problem with my crop (if you do, would you mind explaining it more?). Feel free to change my crop or remove the "Alternative" nomination below altogether if you have a better solution or you want to leave the image as it is. Sorry for creating the alternative without asking first, I really like the image. – LucasT 18:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative, cropped on the right[edit]

Hackerbrücke (Hacker bridge), Munich, Germany.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Picture from WLM 2015, created by Julian Herzog, uploaded and nominated by LucasboschLucasboschT 17:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I cropped this on the right per Ikan Kekek's suggestion. I like it better this way, too. – LucasT 17:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucas, although I was about to suggest this crop myself to Julian, it would have been more polite to let him do the crop himself and suggest an alt. We had this mess of well-meaning alterations of photos a while back and it quickly turned into quite a mess with numerous alternatives in the end. Please be a bit patitent and make suggestion to the nominator instead. This said, I Symbol support vote.svg Support such a crop, but it would have felt better if it had been made by Julian. --cart-Talk 18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • cart, I'm sorry for jumping into action as quickly, I agree I should have waited a bit. I have pinged Julian above about my crop and what he meant in his reply. – LucasT 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's fine, I do see the benefits of this version. I uploaded a file from the original over your upload to preserve the quality. — Julian H. 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 19:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--XRay talk 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support also fine! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, editing thoughts. Julian, I see a line of orange pixels at the top that looks like it doesn't belong there, you can find them by looking at the top most pixels. Also, are these blurred white spots in the sky OOF stars? If not, maybe clone these out as well. – LucasT 20:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think I fixed those issues. The bright spots were probably flies lit by street lights, stars would have to be in focus. Not sure what was going on with the red line, it doesn't even show up in Lightroom, only in the export. — Julian H. 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Julian, I know you are concerned with quality: I have found visible JPG compression artifacts around roof antennas, see my note. – LucasT 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Those are not jpeg artifacts, that's just noise. Fixed though. — Julian H. 08:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Martin--Milseburg (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this version. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Still not perfect, as the extreme right side is notably glary, but that's a small detail and the photo as a whole is quite good and deserves a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 01:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better one. — Draceane talkcontrib. 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Cambridge skyline November 2016 panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2017 at 21:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cambridge skyline from Boston
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good, excelent light Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 23:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice panorama; I added it to the Cambridge article on the English Wikipedia. WClarke 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good Charles (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 10:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically on an outstandig high level, but the motif itself isn´t wowing me. It´s an ordinary American skyline--Milseburg (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, with apologies - I actually kind of agree with Milseburg, and that's why I hadn't voted yet: The dilemma is that this is a very high-quality panorama of what I find a pretty uninteresting scene. If only the more interesting, shorter buildings on the left side could be emphasized over the boring modern boxes in the center and right...And so, this is a notable achievement and a very useful picture, but I'm feeling it as a really good QI/VI, not an FP. However, I can understand perfectly why almost everyone is voting for a feature for this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI yes, for FP bridge is spoiling this shot. Should be more in or completely out. --Mile (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI certainly, and I appreciate your calling to our attention the lesser skylines of the Northeastern U.S. as you did with Jersey City. But this skyline, while it makes ample use of the evening light, goes for comprehensiveness at the expense of wow ... it takes care to show us the lower buildings of Harvard, but as a result leaves us feeling decidedly unbalanced when the taller buildings around MIT suddenly pop up on the right (Compare this)

    I can't blame you for trying as all those boxy modern buildings don't give you too much to work with, but this wasn't it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Brassica oleracea 2011 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2017 at 18:20:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cabbage in a kitchen garden.
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OH MY DOG Charles! I hope so much that you're kidding, a little respect please. The photos do not like? Ok ....but not discredit or scared publishers just because it is not to your taste. Especially educated people and adorable as George. I too often see jobs that are scary for me here, but I think already the rejection is quite disheartening for a person who should not be ridiculed. I'm sorry if I was rude but honestly I did not like this your Comment --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Mild support Beautiful in its way ... doesn't make me want to eat it any more than I already do (But at least it does make better soup than a rose!) Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Charles. IMHO the tone of Charles's oppose seems to be meant as a bit of friendly ribbing rather than disrespect. George is a real gentleman, so I doubt anything disagreeable was intended. lNeverCry 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Apologies to George if my comment was taken as rude. No disrespect. Exactly the opposite. In the UK, we only laugh with people we respect. Charles (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The structure sure is interesting and once you get rid of some of the white glare many of these vegetables often have, it becomes quite beautiful. I have a version in my dropbox if you are interested, George. --cart-Talk 11:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For my taste too harsh light and some missing wow, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Thu 16 Feb → Tue 21 Feb
Fri 17 Feb → Wed 22 Feb
Sat 18 Feb → Thu 23 Feb
Sun 19 Feb → Fri 24 Feb
Mon 20 Feb → Sat 25 Feb
Tue 21 Feb → Sun 26 Feb

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

Sun 12 Feb → Tue 21 Feb
Mon 13 Feb → Wed 22 Feb
Tue 14 Feb → Thu 23 Feb
Wed 15 Feb → Fri 24 Feb
Thu 16 Feb → Sat 25 Feb
Fri 17 Feb → Sun 26 Feb
Sat 18 Feb → Mon 27 Feb
Sun 19 Feb → Tue 28 Feb
Mon 20 Feb → Wed 01 Mar
Tue 21 Feb → Thu 02 Mar

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 (except to add categories on the file page, because need a non-bot user to do it). 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.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category 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 subpage 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.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot to complete it.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2017), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2017.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. 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.