Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2017

File:Capparis spinosa Ichkeul National Parc.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 13:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info by me IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 03:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those photos that make you happy watching. --cart-Talk 06:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot -- Thennicke (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Touzrimounir (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 22:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC) (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Fluss-Seeschwalbe im Vogelschutzgebiet Federseeried (DE-7923-401) beim Fischfang03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 17:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Sterna
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another protected area within close reach from my home is the European Reserve "Federseeried". Approximately 200 bird species are found here at different times of the year. About 15-20 pairs of the Common tern breed here. When waiting for them to get food for the offspring, I had to make a calculation: Every bird goes hunting about every 30 mins. It'll be successful about every fifth swoop. My camera will be in the right position and fully focused on the bird about every 20th time (as they are so superfast!). Fully focused doesn't necessarily mean the bird has caught something. This should tell you the image you see is a nugget... -- AWeith (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great capture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that bird. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great capture! Atsme 📞 21:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I voted for this at QIC and am glad to see it here. PumpkinSky talk 22:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent AWeith trademark tern. ;) --cart-Talk 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes

[[:File:Wurzacher Ried (NSG Nr. 4.035), Frühe Adonisjungfern bei der Eiablage.jpg], not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 17:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Coenagrionidae_.28Narrow-winged_damselflies.29
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need to travel far for exciting wildlife! The moor of the Wurzacher Ried is in bicycle distance from my home and provides a plethora of scenarios. This was a particularly well lit place and crowded with damselflies.
Oppose Unfortunataly, they are all blurred. Charles (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Excellent and would be really useful as a VI, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The two pairs on left are in focus. The flying pair on right make the place very dynamic. I don't think it is possible to get all in focus in such an event. J e e 02:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've decided to change my vote, because Jee is right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. none of the pairs are in focus - and 1/200 sec makes that impossible. Charles (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's only the female (the bottom one) from two pairs that's pretty well in focus. But I generally agree with Jee and cart's viewpoints. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not only per Charles, but the composition is rather chaotic, making it hard for the subject to stand out from the background. A VI likely, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent capture of a very chaotic event performed by the very skittish. Atsme 📞 03:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit messy, but making new life is a messy business and how often do we see this many pairs of these critters in one photo. The red also makes them stand out sufficiently from the background. --cart-Talk 06:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common picture - no wow. And I don't see a sharp dragonfly. --Hockei (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I really must admit that I am utterly surprised. It is hard for me to understand how this image can be described as "Common picture"; despite my personal disappointment this is certainly beyond sheer ignorance, @Hockei: . I may agree to the criticism that the image would suffer from some lack of sharpness, which is debatable. It was – as I described – taken in a swamp under adventurous circumstances (not easy to catch twelve ticklish damselflies all at once; who of you wildlife photographers achieved that before?) that is why it looks somewhat „chaotic“ . Sometimes you have to accept that Nature comprises chaos, @Daniel Case: !. And that is exactly what I value regarding this picture. I am, in general, very astonished about the judgement and the respective arguments in an increasing number of instances here at FPC and I am questioning myself whether I should continue contributing. Sorry to hold you up but I cannot hold my temper any more at this point. Cheers --AWeith (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AWeith, I understand your disappointment as you were a biologist by profession. I'm just an enthusiast but have good experience due to the rich diversity of odonata near my home. I had photographed them ovipositing in heavy monsoon when the streams are very wild (1, 2, 3). Some of them, especially the species who prefer fast flowing water streams are very difficult to capture. The water is flowing and the floating plant is also moving along with the waves. The damselflies are busy serching for the best sites, having the ability to spend more than fifteen minutes under water. And I too in the water upto my neck to get an inline view. I lost one camera during such an expedition!

But we must understand that FPC is not a place where we can expect review by subject experts. He we have photography experts and they may not always able to understand the value of a particular moment in biology. That's why I try to explain things in the nomination and file description as much as possible. It works sometimes. Sometimes I too get disappointed. I had disappointed a lot in my early days here; but now I know I can't expect too much in FPC which makes me feel better.

Hope you too can understand this, control your temper, and enjoy FPC as it is. Please take it light and keep contributing! J e e 03:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but that's FPC. Always mostly genuine votes, some ill-informed (pro or con) and a few revenge opposes. I have taken many similar images, but all are blurred like yours. Multiple ovipositing is very common, but inherently impossible to get right as you need high speed and high Depth of Field and cameras can't do that. Using 1/200 sec on a 600mm lens must have been on a tripod, but you're never going to get sharpness. The best you can hope for is perhaps two pairs in focus then it might work, but none of yours have been captured sharp. Charles (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWeith, I cannot count how often I tried to get a picture like this in a good or for me acceptable quality. I didn't made it. I'm not sure if I kept one of these hundreds of throw away pictures. To get such a picture in world class quality and composition is hardly possible. Charles said it. So don't be angry but rather be honest to yourself. It has nothing to do with biological worth. --Hockei (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SFMasonStreet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 05:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting motif, sharp and cool angle but the shadows are too deep IMO. A bit of HDR might have been better here. Also please fix the category above. --cart-Talk 06:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Category fixed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I doubt my view will be popular here, but I like the shade and find the shade in the foreground and light in the middleground and background refreshing, because the shadow isn't black and I still see the various colors of the houses. I may have a slight bias, because I like San Francisco and this kind of scene, including the shadows, is relaxing to me as a scene that accurately represents San Francisco at a non-foggy time or place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more I look at it, the more I like the composition. Normally you'd end up with an unbalanced image in pointing your camera at a scene in this way, but the taller buildings on the left actually make it quite nicely balanced. And we could argue about the contrast being overdone but I think it's tasteful as it is. But @KennyOMG: please add a category. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. Would like hear more opinions on how to consider this types of old works prior to vote. J e e 15:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really makes this stand out from other San Francisco cityscapes, and the color looks a little off to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea that someone has attempted to take a panoramic image of San Francisco from one of its hills, but this shot is definitely not exceptional enough out of what can be really done. The composition is too busy and the captured buildings are uninteresting except for the houses on the right side depicting the city's traditional and recognisable architectural style. For example, one can get to Telegraph Hill for a nice shot of the Transamerica Pyramid with its surrounding buildings. From the description, I suppose the idea was to depict Mason Street, which could have been captured in a variety of better ways (e.g. the intersection between Mason Street and Washington Street with the Cable Car Museum in the corner), but it seems like there is not much of it. I also tend to agree that the sky is a bit blown, especially with the clouds above the top of the buildings on the right side.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, @Kiril Simeonovski: , however I think there's some misunderstanding here. Sometimes a picture is just a picture with whatever happens to be in on, and not the be-all and end-all of a given subject. This was never meant to be the definitive visual representation of SF, nor of Mason St. It just happened to be taken in SF/on Mason St, therefore the name. Obv if I wanted to take a pic of the TransAm Pyramid or something else I would have. Similarly the northern part of Mason is a completely different beast. As for what makes SF SF: I think if you take away the immediately recognizable landmarks (Pyramid, Bridge, Cable car) then it's the hills, the houses, the Bay and the fog. This pic actually covers 3 of those 4. Having said that I always liked this because I considered it a pretty pic, nothing else. ;) As for the sky being blown, I'm not a fan of compressing the whole dynamics into the midtones, you can see it on my other photos too. (eta: panorama it is not, 35mm on full frame with top&bottom cropped) -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KennyOMG: With all due respect, you were definitely trying to capture an interesting view of the city; unfortunately, it did not end into something that wows me enough for an FP. I don't intend to see the things mentioned in my previous comment in order to support an image from San Francisco, but they are just a sort of things that could make a featurable composition in my humble opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per Cart & Daniel. Daphne Lantier 21:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Jean-de-Buèges cf10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 09:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the simple yet beautiful village scene. J e e 13:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry to introduce a discordant note: This is a very good picture, of course, and informative, but I don't find the composition (or perhaps the motif, as fully depicted) outstanding enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Ikan. Daphne Lantier 21:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI but doesn't stand out from other landscapes, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. --Milseburg (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I must agree with Ikan. Whilst the countryside is beautiful, I don't think this composition compares to, say, File:Vieussan, Hérault 12.jpg (which, by the way, is one of my favourite images on this whole site) -- Thennicke (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larrun - Arroyo 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal oppose I don't know ... I can see why you took it, but it just doesn't come together for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If it was a sunshine weather, it would be perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would disagree, the cloudy weather is perfect for this scene. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Outcropping of layered stone in the background is nice, but overall, I don't consider this a featurable image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for your comments! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide. Hierdensche Beek 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 04:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Nature creates modern art in the clear flowing water of the centuries-old Hierdensche Beek. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not impressed from reflecting trees in water. --Hockei (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low educative value, no clear subject. Sorry. Yann (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Hockei. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, another version, not featured[edit]

Support -- Famberhorst ([[User talk:Famberhorst
Oppose Shadows, or the lack thereof, and the burnt out parts. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.09.24.-05-Felsenberg-Berntal Leistadt--Mauerfuchs-Weibchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info I cannot decide between this and the other version. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well they can't both be FP and this one has lacking focus on the wing, top left in the image.--Peulle (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because of more popularity to the other version. --Hockei (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common kingfisher, October 2015, Osaka VI.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 17:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Laitche (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No definition in the feathers. Charles (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyway, it's lovely and I like it. --Hockei (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paxzcasso1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 02:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Paxzcasso - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Pha Diao Dai ("Lonely Cliff"), Khao Yai National Park, Thailand
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, only thing I'd wish for is a tad bit more space at the bottom, but let's not be greedy here. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as long as the CAs are not cleaned --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy CA and general lack of detail.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, I don't think I've ever seen this much CA in a photo before. Not sure it can be fixed without severely harming the quality of the photo. --cart-Talk 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sao Jose dos Ausentes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 05:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Araucarias under the stars; Gaucho Plateau, Brazil. Credit to the author for uploading full-resolution. Image quality isn't perfect, but considering the size and that it's a night shot (low DOF) I think it's okay.
Info created and uploaded by Gui Becker - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support some technical issues but great wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the perspective distortion offputting. Charles (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - artistic wow - Atsme 📞 12:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unlike Charles I think the perspective works quite well here, the trees literally and perspectivically pointing towards the stars. The quality could be better but whatever, it's great. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same; they look like they're reaching for the heavens. I find it quite a "primal" image. -- Thennicke (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bad quality, border especially --Mile (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting shot, but the quality is so shockingly poor when you zoom... -- Pofka (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need verticals fix --The Photographer 16:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Pofka and PetarM. Daphne Lantier 19:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Per Pofka, plus coma and some CAs. What a pity. Sting (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very interesting trees, but opposing per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant oppose It is a startling image. Taken with a quarter moon requiring exposure of f/2.8, 20s, ISO 5000. Having the landscape and stars exposed together is not trivial. I like the central portion, with the trees and stars, and the quality there is good enough considering the circumstances and the resulting image. But the overall composition doesn't work for me, with too much of the tree on the left, not enough river, and the long exposure seems to have make some of the foliage smudge in an unappealing way. I tried cropping a central part, and also some vertical perspective changes (mainly to get rid of the tree on the left), but the resulting squarish crop didn't really work. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canon EOS RebelG open.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 19:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea of "posing" it like this, but other than that it's lacking in terms of WOW-factor for me. It's a good and useful image, but from a static object in a controlled studio environment I'd expect a bit more. For example, there seem to be two light sources of different color involved: blue-ish (daylight?) from the right and yellow-ish (tungsten?) from the left, compare e.g. highlights on the mode dial). --El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your are right I was using a window and a fluroescent lamp.--Cvmontuy (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Cvmontuy (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young beech in spruce forest.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 10:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious Support here. It's extremely chaotic but strangely relaxing at the same time. Perhaps, though, in this case less would have been more and I wish there was a version without the sapling/bush in the center. Would be a perfect U frame with increasing visibility through the branches as the eye moves upward. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not allowed to cut it down. :) Anyway, it was the green glow of the sapling that guided me to the clearing. I like how the soft, green young leaves contrast against the dark spruces with all their spiky branches surrounding the sapling. --cart-Talk 17:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ofc I didn't mean you should have. :) Was just thinking out loud that even if the salping was the reason to take this picture, it might have been more without the sapling in the end, and how weird that is. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Kenny. It helps that the assortment of tree species reminds me of the kind of forests that, in my area, I have to hike up to mountaintops to experience (although for Norway spruce in that picture, substitute balsam fir in the Northeastern US/Eastern Canada montane boreal forest). The idea of the beech sapling striving to the light makes this work, overcoming the discordant downed tree at the bottom (which, of course, could also tell us how daunting the beech's aspirations are). Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely lights! J e e 14:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light green leaves at the bottom are lovely but occupy too little of the frame (I think 2/3 would be better). The rest of the image just isn't very interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the sharpness of the whisps, the color contrast, the sweep of the branches and what KennyOMG said: "chaotic but extremely relaxing". Atsme 📞 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I simply don't find it exceptional. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Let's try something else instead. --cart-Talk 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yacht Astor May 17th 2017 D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 03:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created by Don (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Don (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice mood, even if kind of noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose All the boats and other objects are too dark for me. You can barely see anything more in this picture except the sunset. Even if the sunset looks pleasant, I decided not to support it just because of it. -- Pofka (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 11:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lycidae-Kadavoor-2017-05-22-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 06:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info Lycidae with a Cunaxidae. It's most likely a larva, but there's also s small chance it could be a larviform female. See the quoted comment of the expert in file description for more details. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 06:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 06:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question It's certainly an FP-quality photo. The lack of clear categorization seems unavoidable, and I have every plan to vote for this, regardless, but a point for clarification: Is the pink mite or whatever from the Cunaxidae family? Shouldn't that category be included at the bottom of the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; both the experts commented in that Facebook link (Michael Geiser and Jayaram Devang) are subject experts of Coleoptera and Trombidiformes respectively. It is difficult to find the ID for a lower level, especially for a female or larva of such a small subjects. I added Category:Cunaxidae too as four people already confirmed that ID. J e e 08:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC) BTW, this picture has 146 likes, mostly from subject experts in a subject specific group. [reply]

Thanks. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support shame about the id problem, but the mite makes it. 09:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So mite makes right?

Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alrite, you mite be rite, if a bit trite. Jee found a good no-bite, flash-lite site at the rite hite at nite without much of a fite. Quite. Charles (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J e e 09:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yuck! Wow! --cart-Talk 11:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And the contrast/colours are lovely -- Thennicke (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! The detail is remarkable! Atsme 📞 21:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful like this ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 11:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /XRay ^talk 16:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_.28Beetles.29

File:Caboclo by Jean-Baptiste Debret 1834.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 18:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Support All by -- The Photographer 18:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be happy to vote for this photo, but I think it could use more documentation. Do we know what kind of birds are they shooting and which tribe these men are members of? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'm sorry for the spanish description, however, now we need a english native --The Photographer 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support I added an English translation courtesy of Google. I'm sure this digitization could be improved on in the future but for now it's good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The English text should be edited, but I'm content to simply support, for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not too familiar with the process that gave birth to it, but it's an incredible picture for its historic significance, composition and what it depicts. I believe the latter is what qualifies it to be a FP. Atsme 📞 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Atsme. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Machu Picchu, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 47.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 20:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info View of the ancient houses of Machu Picchu houses, Urubamba Province, Cusco Region, today Peru. The 15th-century Inca citadel, abandoned one century later, is situated in the Sacred Valley on a mountain ridge 2,430 metres (7,970 ft) above sea level. All by me, Poc o² 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice clean shot with great detail. Atsme 📞 23:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, it can't be lack --The Photographer 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A fresh look at a familiar subject; considering the cliché view from the Inca Trail so predominates, it's almost like I've never seen this before. I particularly like the bushed tourists—been there (well, not exactly, but that sort of place), done that. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks tilted. The people aren't standing/sitting straight. Suggest nearly 2° rotation and a little vertical perspective correction may help. -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seconding the tilt argument. I doesn't need as much as 2° (ccw) but def can use 1°+. Indifferent on the perspective correction though. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, KennyOMG: I applied a tilt. Poc o² 20:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. I'm curious, any specific reason why you picked the original crop as it seems there's more of this image that was cut? -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kenny is~~ Colin right, it look now much better than the cut version --The Photographer 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Colin is right" <-- I fixed it for you. ;) -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry KennyOMG I fixed the comment. Thanks for the Clarification --The Photographer 13:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it also improved the crop, with the stairs leading in from the corner. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The funny think is that it was leveled as I took it, and then I applied a tilt (and therefore lost a piece of image), now there is more image and it isn't tilted. Good point :) Poc o² 16:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for fixing the tilt -- Thennicke (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Wood sorrel after rain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 20:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Oxalidaceae
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 20:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sorrel seems to float above the ground. Rich colors and focused. Love it! PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support So soothing ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special here and noise artefacts. --Hockei (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 10:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Fünf Höfe - Hanging Gardens, Munich, April 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 12:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info Munich shopping mall Fünf Höfe: Hanging Gardens by Tita Giese. A truly urban jungle of plants, windows, lights, and reflections. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some posterization of lights in background but too little to ruin the image. I can never hear the phrase "hanging garden" without thinking of that Cure song. Daniel Case (talk)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Others

File:Heteropoda venatoria-Kadavoor-2017-05-22-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 07:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info Heteropoda venatoria, Giant crab spider, is a species of spider in the family Sparassidae, the huntsman spiders. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 07:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Although this big but rather harmless spider is very common and there is at lest one in my room always, it is difficult to find it in natural environment. This time I got it on my garden. J e e 07:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like spiders, but great anyway. ;) Yann (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty spider, very well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support How big? Charles (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The adult has a flat, brown body 2 to 2.5 cm (0.8 to 1 inch) long, 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 inches) wide, including the legs. I saw once it paralyzed a Common house gecko with a single bite. Will bite us too if taken in hand. Supposed to be painful; but harmless. J e e 09:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Sparassidae_.28Huntsman_spiders.29

File:Guépier d'Europe ichkeul (Merops apiaster) European Bee-eater.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 17:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the bottom crop wasn't so close to the tail feather. The room at top is perfect. Daphne Lantier 18:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now?. El Golli Mohamed 19:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, though colours might be perked up a bit. I would crop it square, but that doesn't influence my vote. Charles (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive that El Golli Mohamed won all of the top 8 places in WLE Tunisia 2016; with uploads like this you might be able to do it again this year -- Thennicke (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Thank you .El Golli Mohamed 14:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice colours and bokeh; I'm happy with the crop as it is. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Professional and well-managed photograph of a beautiful specimen with a high encyclopedic value, and not like the Colin image of the year (just kidding this last comment) --The Photographer 11:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Thank you .El Golli Mohamed 14:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Kreuzgang, Kapelle -- 2017 -- 7218-24.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very monastic --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings

File:Private Zeno W. Muhl serving with the 429th Engineers as a truck driver.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 19:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Nick Parrino, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support US truck driver in the Persian Corridor carrying supply to Russia, 1943. Irresistible smile. The "scars" on the truck door are telling about the road condition. -- Yann (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "scars", that's just mud splatter. My car used to look the same when I lived on Gotland! :) --cart-Talk 19:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor car! Yann (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice historic value but no wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The expression is nice but the composition is haphazard, with the antenna cut off halfway and the left crop at an awkward place as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libélula (Tramea sp), Cerro Brujo, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 145.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 21:36:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info Exemplar of a Saddlebags glider (Tramea sp.), Cerro Brujo, San Cristobal Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. All by me, Poc o² 21:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wings get lost in the bokeh. Daphne Lantier 22:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier makes a good point but I think everything else in the photo is so good it should be voted FP despite the small shortcoming.--Peulle (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me the bokeh fade makes the wings look more dreamlike. Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors! The Bokeh! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Focus is better on the early nom which just failed for one vote. I'll support it again. J e e 03:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, after comparing both images several times I decided to Support this though the end segment (S10) is out of focus which is very important in identification purposes. As KoH and Cart commented the light is far better here. The other one seems in backlit. J e e 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful creamy bokeh. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The focus may not be 100%, but the light and colors are irresistable. The bokeh does interfere a bit with the wings, but combined with this posture, the now gossamer wings makes this a fairytale photo. --cart-Talk 12:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, exactly what I was thinking, just stated more clearly. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As Jee says, the end of the abdomen is out of focus. The other image was better quality. Charles (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plus, plus, plus - great shot with excellent detail where it counts. Atsme 📞 03:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bright background is too distracting for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the loveliness of the composition and bokeh make up for the slight unsharpness -- Thennicke (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Daphne Lantier. Wings looks problematic to me as well. -- Pofka (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We've seen lots excellent images of dragonflies at FPC in the past. While this one certainly is not a bad image, I think it's not quite up the the competition. --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Покинута обсерваторія.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 02:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Abandoned Observatory "White Elephant". Carpathian National Nature Park
Info created and uploaded by Taras Dut. - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is simply awesome. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 04:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite dramatic. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome, per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a picture! --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough.--Peulle (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support dramatic. Charles (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wish more size. J e e 12:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though a bit small for this kind of photo. --Laitche (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No words! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. No reason for a landscape to be so small, but very good of course. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support I love the way it looks like a breaking wave. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One vote more or less doesn't matter, but here it is... --Basotxerri (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Winterswijk, Woold, Berenschot's Watermolen -- 2017 -- 0250.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 05:25:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Netherlands
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - XRay, please state what you find special about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the composition. It like every photograph: There are different views and opinions. If the photograph is not OK as FPC, I'll withdraw it within the next days. In my opinion, it is worth a try to nominate it. --XRay ^talk 08:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not feeling it, but that's OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support good composition ;-) Albertus teolog (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A striking juxtaposition. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: this is a really nice idea but I wish the lighting was better, less shade and more soft direct lighting. And the position of the windows is unfortunately somewhat unharmonic. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Common blue damselflies (Enallagma cyathigerum) mating composite.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 19:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info A composite showing how the female common blue damselfly can swing her abdomen to initiate pairing. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Terrific capture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I checked the category to see whether you captured the actual mating. It seems you didn't or not yet uploaded? J e e 02:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't get it, Jee. I was on 100mm macro, so very close, and they flew off. Charles (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. But you captured some wonderful moments! (Sometimes, it takes a lot of time to get coupled. Sometimes the male needs to change the perch and try again.) J e e 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Atsme 📞 19:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 06:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp. --Hockei (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Duomo (Montefiascone) - Dome Interior.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 20:22:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info After a fire during the night of Good Friday in 1670 destroyed the roof and part of the interior of the cathedral, the repair and completion of the construction was entrusted to Carlo Fontana, who amended Sanmicheli's plans to produce a dome more in keeping with contemporary taste which was to impact decisively on the landscape of the surrounding countryside. The new dome was opened on 16 December 1674. All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am left wondering why the top and bottom of the frame were cropped so tight? Atsme 📞 13:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the dome is very big and very low ....this is the max for my camera. Thanks. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 02:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a really interesting watch dial. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good perspective shot.--Peulle (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Mercado Municipal of São Paulo, Brazil 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 17:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- The Photographer 17:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great clutter of good food (something that would never be allowed here in our sterile stores) but the light is just a little to cold to make it look really yummy. Setting the white balance by the shirt on the guy who's head is obscured by some sausages would make this more mouth-watering IMO. --cart-Talk 22:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter Very nice recomendation in a while now I think that it look better, please, let me know if I did a good work. Thanks! --The Photographer 00:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks much better now, so Support. :) --cart-Talk 09:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The last edit did it for me. I now consider this an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - verrrry interesting (and a talent release wasn't necessary - photog's dream 😆) Atsme 📞 13:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and the seventh. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Background far from perfect, but given the ISO setting and what that implies about the available light it may not have been possible to do any better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:PogledKonPrespaOdPelister.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 18:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winter landscape on the peak Pelister (2,601 m)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice winter colors and mood, but the composition doesn't wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This composition Is artwork --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Moroder Ezarateesteban 22:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition works for me. -- Pofka (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing is special enough: neither the subject, the composition, or the quality. In short, no wow. Yann (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rio Tagus (ship, 1979), Sète cf11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 19:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and lighting are good, and I like the rust -- Thennicke (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 22:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 17:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport

File:2016 Pałac w Wojanowie 7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 21:34:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great but there's some kind of dust spot above the castle, I've left a note. --Code (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. This is a great view of an impressive building, only wish the shadow weren't there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weaker support than King. Not only is the shadow distracting, there are some borderline blown areas on the castle facade. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the facade looked weird as well, and was in fact about to weak oppose over that. But I downloaded the file and found that the detail was there. And not just that the values weren't 255, which can be faked by dragging the highlights slider to recover data that's not even there, but actual detail which I revealed by dropping exposure even further. But the exposure definitely could have been better; I would have done 15 stops (equivalent of 1/500s at f/8 at ISO 100) rather than the 14⅓ used here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't mind the shadows, they make the foreground interesting, but the building is too bright. --cart-Talk 06:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't believe in "too bright"; it's good to use the colour space to its full extent (obviously without clipping) -- Thennicke (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don´t mind shadows or brightness but the branches hiding part of the building is disturbing. --Milseburg (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 08:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Appartement im Dormitorium -- 2017 -- 7254-60.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 03:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by Dietmar Rabich - nominated by Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Along with the spectacular interior of the Heiligengrabe Chapel and other parts of the Monastery Endowment of the Holy Grave, XRay also photographed the apartments of the monks extensively. I consider this is the best of those photos that I've seen so far, and I find the experience of looking at it rewarding in a similar way to looking at a fine studio still life painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the "clean" mood of the picture --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Support Thank to Ikan Kekek for nominating this photograph. --XRay ^talk 04:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The distortion is understandable given the size of the room, but I find it a bit overwhelming -- Thennicke (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Frank. --Code (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special. --Laitche (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Thennicke. --Hockei (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply, clean and minimalist Neutral Peer Colin, extreme and unnatural distortion --The Photographer 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Thennicke. I do find it a striking image, with lovely pastel colours, and it has a certain geometric charm so I won't oppose. But as a way to photograph a small room, I don't think an ultra-wide lens is optimal here. -- Colin (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You all have a point. I'd be interested to see XRay's thoughts on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your comment about the lens and I was thinking about the optimal lens. The ultra-wide lens has disadvantages, yes. But IMO the distortion is only a minor problem in this case. With more focal length the furniture wouldn't be seen completely. A problem - as you said - of a small room. Another solution would be to reduce to windows, table and chairs or windows and wardrobe or parts of the furniture in the foreground which cause other problems. IMO this kind of view is the best way to show the room. Other views of kitchen and bathroom were much more problematic. --XRay ^talk 04:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A US real estate photographer, who used to do lots of Sony lens reviews, recommended not really going much below 20mm (full frame), as the distortions get too weird for people to accept. I think the distortion here is really quite extreme actually, but the overall scene is pleasing enough. The chairs and table look really odd, but since the effect is rather artistic, it nearly works. It may be "the best way to show the room" but that doesn't mean it is the best kind of image photographically. There's a real temptation (especially with stitched photos) to try to cram everything in. The famous painters also knew that taking an ultra-wide perspective looked unsettling. Of course, I like my fish-eye lens too :-) -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I think my next camera will be a full frame camera. The camera used for this photograph is part of equipment of Wikimedia Austria (Thanks to Austria). The result of all the photographs taken in Heiligengrabe is, that a lens with a focal length of 11 mm may be very useful for small rooms, but the photographs should taken carefully. Sometimes there was too much not acceptable distortion. So I agree to your explanation. I think I'll buy another wide angle lens, may be at least 14 or 20 mm. --XRay ^talk 19:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I accept completely XRay's explanation of the tradeoffs he had to make. So many things work for me in this image ... the slightly blown windows are, after all, really the only light source in the image, sort of emphasizing the religious nature of this space. Or, I should say, there are the only light source that's actually on ... I love the way the very modern lamp in the back corner asserts its right to be in the picture by its own simplicity of design. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply but very nice --Pudelek (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reading all the reviews. J e e 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /J e e 08:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Tabuleiros de Galton (antes e depois).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 22:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Rodrigo.Argenton -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, even rendering striations on individual pegs and shadows on each white ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs) 09:04, 2 June 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Грот на мысе Большой Атлеш.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 03:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by User:N 3 14 15 92 65 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Description, translated via Google Translate: The huge grotto is not noticeable from the land, not even from the cape of Big Atlesh. You can get to the grotto by going east from the arch of the Great Atlas. When the sea is agitated, you will have to climb the rocks just above the surf line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of the Photoshop CC splash screen. :) --cart-Talk 09:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's interesting - the similarity is notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fresh composition --The Photographer 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 08:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Numida meleagris - Heidelberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 06:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Galliformes
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a background! J e e 06:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me, a very routine picture of a bird. QI possibly, but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too busy and insufficiently blurred. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made the photo especially because of the background. --Llez (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No, it's not sublime or sophisticated, it is happy, over-the-top whimsical, gaudy like your favorite Aunt's Victorian majolica pottery vases. That's an art form too and should be represented at FP. --cart-Talk 06:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only average technical quality and composition. Charles (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support brightly --Neptuul (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel --Hockei (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the background. Wish some flowers weren't wilted though. -- Colin (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case and Charles.--Peulle (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of Saint Marie Interior 3, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 15:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- -- Pofka (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picture of the view to the main altar is already featured picture. I believe the organ view is also worth the featured picture title. -- Pofka (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 22:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the image pulled my eyes in. I actually felt the pull...Atsme 📞 02:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slight distortion near the edges but otherwise very good.--Peulle (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support With David diverted by his real life (which I do not begrudge him in the slightest), it is always good to see another of his images here, especially the church interiors, and I remember when he uploaded this one. I was expecting him to nominate it shortly afterwards, and while a lot more time has gone by since then I am nonetheless as happy to see it nominated. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Margaret Hamilton.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 17:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Margaret Hamilton standing next to the navigation software that she and her MIT team produced for the Apollo Project (1 January 1969). Created by Draper Laboratory - uploaded by Girona7 - nominated by Tino -- Tino (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a famous and iconic image, and the technical quality should be good enough (I hope being a grayscale is not a problem). -- Tino (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominate this image (maybe need a format image change). BTW I uploaded a restaured jpg version, however, I don't underestand why the contrast look different --The Photographer 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The only difference I'm seeing between the two versions is that in the restored version, a few spots were removed and a scratch was taken out. I'd support substituting that version, but it's not a big deal to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. The restored version looks unnaturally smooth, with the fine details blurred by NR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - works for me. Atsme 📞 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 06:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was searching around for this image the other day and couldn't seem to find it, so thanks for nominating it. It's a good one. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support the restored JPEG instead. Yann (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the enthusiasm and the sheer joy of having completed a difficult project that this picture conveys. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tino and Daniel Case. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 21:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 05:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Nikola Shishevski Matka.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 15:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Gadjowsky - uploaded by Gadjowsky - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral jpg artifacts --The Photographer 18:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seriously, this is not the picture to care about such things. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kenny, --cart-Talk 06:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The trees in the bottom and poor quality ruin it for me. Big wow otherwise though -- Thennicke (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. The light beaming onto the monastery and environs does it for me. Not good for pixel-peeping, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a shame about the technical quality. Charles (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an incredible scenery however I wouldn't let it pass QIC because of noise and low detail so I can't see why it should be a FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basotxerri, while the quality here is certainly borderline, QIC is not a requirement for FP and has its own standards which permit "incredible scenery" to compensate for technical shortcomings. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The graininess makes it look more painterly to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suffering from processing and low JPG quality. But the image is good and not too bad at 6 megapixels. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very interesting scene. Amazing. But... The quality is strangely low. -- Pofka (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful place, lovely rays of light, but the glow softens the detail. Atsme 📞 02:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite an epic scenery. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:FCAB Baquedano roundhouse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 11:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info View through the roundhouse at Baquedano, Chile.
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the abandoned feel of this image -- Thennicke (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really striking. You feel like the train is coming toward you, and then on closer inspection, you know it can't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Reminds me a bit of an historic gold mining town near the Fairbanks, AK area. Atsme 📞 03:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support super --Pudelek (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PumpkinSky talk 02:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice old-fashioned feel. But at only 7.6 MP, the top right would be absolutely torn apart for the unsharpness + CA if it were taken on a 5DS R. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Lotus JNTBGRI.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 17:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Sacred Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) at Jawarlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Gardens and Research Intitute, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. All by Shishr -- Shishirdasika (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shishirdasika (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Flower is nice but the background is more of a distraction than I wish it were. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background (the green leaves) is disturbing me. Also no wow. Common composition. --Hockei (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The green leaves are ok, but the brown one is disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neptuul (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The flower is great, but that's not enough for me. The background has been pointed to, but what bugs me more is the leaf at the lower right corner. I find it distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stift Zwettl Kreuzgang Nordflügel 02.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 06:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info North wing of the cloister at Zwettl Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2017
Support - Per Ikan plus I love the vanishing point ambiance. But is it an optical illusion or is this slightly tilted to the left? PumpkinSky talk 12:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Info The left wall is indeed not vertical in reality, it is leaning outwards due to the weight of the vault, which pushes it outwards. But no problem, it is still stable after hundreds of years --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a bit tight on arc and top, however, well detailed and executed --The Photographer 19:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Atsme 📞 02:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Klasse. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iliff-quality. I can almost hear the Gregorian chant echoing off the stone. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria

File:Brown-lipped snail (Cepaea nemoralis) 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 09:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info Poor old molluscs don't even get their own category on FPC. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not very big, but nice light and colors. --Yann (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some chroma noise and general lack of sharpness in places - for such a low resolution image, I don't think that's good enough for FP.--Peulle (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Around head not sharp and no clear demarcation to the background. --Hockei (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have preferred a tighter crop but I think this is as small as we can get at this resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I like seeing a shell on a living snail, but while this picture is of course good, it doesn't stand out to me as outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mallnitz Seebach Seitenarm 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 12:00:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
Info Branch of the Seebach stream near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A placid confluence alright, but not an exceptional image. QI but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Daniel Case. Not exceptional for me as well. -- Pofka (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel and Pofka. However, the coloured stones or objects in the crystal clear water are really interesting. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very nice and interesting shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:100 Lire - Citta del Vaticano - Giovanni XXIII.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 15:04:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the darkness of the bottom of the coin or the greenish shadow of the bottom half of the coin. Daphne Lantier 21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Detail is hidden in the shadows. Atsme 📞 21:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Clarity and lighting are not at the level of FP coins. Compare File:Argentina 1828 8 Escudos.jpg, for example. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, especially Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Shadows & darkness. -- Pofka (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.09.24.-06-Felsenberg-Berntal Leistadt--Mauerfuchs-Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info I cannot decide between this and the other version. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this one because of the distraction background on the other version -- Wolf im Wald 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a nice wing shot, but I'm not sure the head is sharp enough for FP. Charles (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should take the same measure for estimating your own pictures as other people's pictures. --Hockei (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The head is not the focus of this image. It makes sense to aim for the head when taking an image of most animals and insects, but in this situation I don't think the head is important -- Thennicke (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I disagree. The head is always vital for this sort of insect photo. Just look at all the successful FPs. Charles (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can that weird little halo on the right edge of the wing and leg be cleaned up? Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Arches Fingers IMG 0058 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 21:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Atsme-- Atsme 📞 21:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atsme 📞 21:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the only picture we have of a rock formation flipping someone off. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^{Even funnier that we managed to spot them...😂 Atsme 📞 18:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very catchy colors. -- Pofka (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
amused Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is that rock seriously giving me the bird? Where did I put that dynamite...--Peulle (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Grand Canyon Horseshoe Bend.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 14:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful place, great quality. Yann (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great - except of the unsharp bottom. That spoils it. --Milseburg (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 20:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm at a loss as to how you get such impressive pixel-level sharpness... Anyway, great image, as usual. Textbook composition -- Thennicke (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm no longer at a loss - I've been using too high a sharpening radius :D -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm fine with the bottom; stop down any further and using a 50mm prime on a 5DS R would have been pointless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg. The unsharp foreground surely adds nothing to the picture; it only subtracts from it, and is in my opinion disqualifying. If you crop it out, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the foreground does add to the image, even if it is unsharp (since the foreground is not the subject that should be irrelevant anyway. Also, per Peulle below, it's impossible without focus stacking). The reason the inclusion of the foreground is important IMO that it allows the curve of the river and rocks to be uninterrupted. One of the hardest things to do is avoiding those kinds of "cuts" in an image and I suspect that's what Thomas was going for here -- Thennicke (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thennicke! That was exactly my intention. :-) Regards -- Wolf im Wald 14:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see the point made by Milseburg and Ikan Kekek, but since the foreground curves upwards to the right, cropping it out would mean cutting off the river: no fix possible without focus stacking. Main subject is clear and sharp, the level of detail is amazing for such a large photo, you can even see birds in the sky clearly outlined and power line towers in the distance. Slight noise but hardly noteworthy given the high resolution.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and that resolution! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the scale provided by the guy on the cliff. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 19:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g. balaxaZe★ 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States

File:Islamic geometric patterns (Aydar kadi mosque, Bitola, Macedonia).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 18:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Religion
Info Islamic geometric patterns (Aydar kadi mosque, Bitola, Macedonia). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be svg (just kidding) --The Photographer 18:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice abstraction -- Thennicke (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. :) --Peulle (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVery good indeed, inclusive the two spiders ;-) --Llez (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per The Photographer... --Laitche (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hypnotic, if I let it be. But one question, Mile: Did you take this photo at an angle, rather than straight? If so, why? Because you found it more interesting to shoot that way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has depth, wall is not flat but hemisphere. --Mile (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

File:Reine Lofoten 2009.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Sveter – uploaded by Sveter – nominated by Draceane — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is certainly better than the existing FP but I think File:Reine at Reinefjorden, 2010 September.jpg by User:Ximonic is far superior in resolution and light and atmosphere. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Colin, and furthermore the lake is cropped on the right in this one, and too closely on the left as well. Seems a bit of an arbitrary composition -- Thennicke (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thennicke, I don't think the composition is "arbitrary". Just as wide as the photographer could get. The photo is uncropped and the focal length is 18mm from an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens on an APS-C camera. I agree it would be nice to have a little more width, but not a deal breaker. The weather and colours are great, if it was a more modern photo with more detail than 6MP, it might still be a winner for me. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The crop is fine, IMO, but Ximonic's picture is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Moving backwards to find a new angle (zooming with feet), or even creating a panorama (as it appears Ximonic did), are almost always possibilities. I see no reason why that couldn't have been done here, and I would have supported if the composition was better. And of course I don't mean to be harsh with my choice of words; it is otherwise a great image. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't know. Moving backwards isn't always possible or introduces other unwanted elements into the scene (like some huge road sign). And rather fewer people have the equipment and know-how to make panoramas that are good enough for FP. So again I think "I see no reason why that couldn't be done here" is rather supposing quite a lot. We can wish the scene was wider, that's all. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My vote is only because of the "best of the best" criterion -- Thennicke (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. The colors and composition are great, the former especially feel like the Arctic as I have experienced it, but there is far too much unsharpness and CA in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. -- Pofka (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eucomatocera vittata-Kadavoor-2017-05-23-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 13:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info Eucomatocera vittata is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, Longhorn beetle. Very small; body length only 10mm. Horn is as long as the body. Its a stemborer; here it is enjoying the sap of Pueraria phaseoloides. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 13:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 13:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PumpkinSky talk 15:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. Is the green channel a bit dominant though? Charles (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I think it is because of the surrounding foliage. Its very close to ground and the cover crop is too green. See another photo taken yesterday. J e e 01:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 07:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Holy shh... that is one difficult shot, getting this sharp from the side angle. Clearly an FP in my book.--Peulle (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful animal and very nice image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support How on earth did you spot it? What a great shot! Atsme 📞 21:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 12:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Cerambycidae_.28Longhorned_Beetles.29

File:2016.08.23.-01-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 10:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 18:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is sharp and all, showing off the damselfly in an encyclopedic way but that grey background is just too boring. This might be more of a VI or an FP on one of the WPs. --cart-Talk 22:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per cart. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't mind the gray bokeh; the damselfly is colorful, and it and the plant provide enough interest to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and File:Chalcolestes viridis qtl3.jpg existing FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image Colin links to is far superior. Charles (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart, Charles and Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The composition of my picture is much better than this of the other one what is only a bit bigger. Nothing else. Also here as example for a simple and boring composition what I never would support but got FP. The sharpness of my picture is much better than in Charles one what found many supporters what I cannot understand. How ever, I hadn't expect positive votes neither from Colin nor from Charles. Whereas certainly both have different reasons. --Hockei (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the sharpness in this image is better than my composite. As it says in the FP guidelines " For featured pictures, many voters legitimately believe that a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a more valuable picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject." Charles (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One main drawback of this images is the eye is a bit out of focus. A Lestes species has eyes very projected from their body. Also the caudal appendages are a bit more sharp in Quartl's photo. While looking carefully, we can see he used the focal plane as the left eye to left caudal appendage whereas you used center-line of the damselfly body. The body center-line will work in most cases; but not for a subject having projected body parts. J e e 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The two images seem fairly similar in quality but there's something about the existing image that I like better. Better background and a bit more "wow".--Peulle (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Very rusty chain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 08:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/objects
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 08:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 08:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Altostratus (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good for "natural phenomena" too. J e e 16:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, it clearly showes what forces of nature can do to an object. --cart-Talk 16:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hockei (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Another of the kind of picture of something minor that you always raise to the level of transcendence. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) This one took me several days to get right. I shot it in rain, direct sunlight, reflected light, shadow and finally on an overcast evening to get the light on the texture right. That is, to make it appear as I saw it with my eyes. I could probably do a book on it about how light and humidity changes a subject's appearance. ;) --cart-Talk 20:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be eager to read it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Michael Freeman's "Capturing Light" goes in that direction as well and I liked it very much, so … --El Grafo (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Laitche (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support You nailed it!! Atsme 📞 21:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 15:16:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Maldives
Info Diamonds Thudufushi Beach & Water Villas, a luxury resort on Thudufushi, Ari Atoll, Maldives. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're so close to Kerala! J e e 16:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful shot with the clouds cooperating. I swear, you are posting this just to make me jealous... ...grumble, grumble... --cart-Talk 16:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The problem with photos like these is that it transfers you in a kind of holiday mood that make you accept it anyway. But: you've got excellent conditions, the image is sharp, the water is crystal clear and appealing blue and the composition is well chosen. It's simply perfect! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks! :-) I only wish I could have enjoyed excellent conditions a little bit more intensive... To be honest, the weather during my stay in the Maldives was predominantly ~~hideous~~ challenging ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. And this is salvage photography, as unless humanity creates and effectuates global cooling soon, this island will doubtless be under water within a few decades at most. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 05:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The clouds make the difference between this and a standard tourist-brochure photo. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually try to avoid piling on the support train but sometimes you just have to. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on my bucket list!! This image validates why....Atsme 📞 21:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Maldives

File:Eastern great egret landing at Tennōji Park in Osaka, December 2016 - 753.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 13:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info |c|u|n| by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ We already have another FP image of this bird landing by User:Laitche. I don't think we want two. 21:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is better. Charles (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Charles --where is the rule saying we can't have two such images by the same person, or are you inventing your own rules again? PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No rule. Just my opinion. And please stop the snide remarks. Charles (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're inventing rules and standards where there are none, which does not constitute a valid oppose. Just my opinion.PumpkinSky talk 12:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky I don't think your comments are fair. Opinions expressed on what constitutes an image being among "the finest on Commons" are not restricted to a bounded set of "rules". The nomination, particularly when it had a dark background, was rather similar to the previous one. That's not an uncommon complaint at FP, over the years, and sometimes the complaint is echoed and sometimes there are times we support anyway. It is also common to compare a nomination to its peers. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin You seem to not be realizing that when I wrote that the ONLY objection Charles had posted was "We already have another FP image of this bird landing by User:Laitche. I don't think we want two." So I feel my comment was completely fair because there is no rule about how many similar photos one user can have. I do not consider such an objection valid. Charles had not commented on the photo's merits at that point. Note below that Ikan pretty much agrees with me. It was only later that Charles made comments on the merits of the photo. Now if you're going to still say a nominator can't have more than one similar photo, we'll just have to agree to disagree. PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky, no I didn't make a mistake. Your assumption "there is no rule" => "invalid objection" is simply false. Or, to use your argument, where is the rule that says all oppose reasons must come from one of the following community agreed options:....." I'm not saying a nominator can't have more than one similar photo. Please do not put words in my mouth. I explained to you that objections such as this occur not uncommonly over the years at FP, and sometime there is agreement and sometimes disagreement. You and Ikan were free to suggest we can have any number of egrets landing in Osaka with a dark background (as it was then) and others are free to say that we have one already and this no better. By all means disagree with Charles, but his oppose isn't invalid on any FPC-rules grounds. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin We'll just have to disagree. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. I see no reason to belabor the point beyond this. PumpkinSky talk 13:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky Wrt to your "inventing rules again" complaint, this isn't something you can just "agree to disagree" on, but an argument you would do well to avoid in future. Vigorously disagree with someone if you like, but the "rules and standards" are open, not closed. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. I will bring up whatever I like. Now please drop the stick, which I already alluded to in the prior post. PumpkinSky talk 15:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be aware that the that the stick is in your hands, and was used to beat Charles for "inventing rules". -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, YOO HOO. It was all quiet for days until YOU started rattling your sabre here today, so it is in "your" hands, not mine. Now since you didn't understand my prior two requests, I'll put it in plain English, leave me alone, drop it, now. PumpkinSky talk 15:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky, please relax a bit. My perception (though I could be wrong) is that Colin functions in part as a kind of elder statesman at FPC. There is much that anyone can learn from him. It's great that you're passionate, but when things work well at FPC (and also at VIC and so forth), the discussions are based rather more on dispassionate discourse than personal attacks or refusal to engage in good-faith dialogue or concede the possibility that you could be wrong. I think it's fair to assume that anyone taking part here is passionate about photography or at least has views about what is or is not a good photo to them - that's all to the good. But dialing back one's personal feelings so as to work well with others is basic to all Wikis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, the "elder" bit is sadly becoming more apparent every day. Well, I'm no angel when it comes to sometimes being a big too passionate in a disagreement, though nothing was ever achieved by folk who simply sit and watch the world go by. Let's put this disagreement behind us. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionI'm a bit new to FP, so I have a follow-up to this question; the Guidelines say: "Normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, so if a better version exists the original version should be delisted". My question is how similar two images have to be before they are considered "different versions of the same image"?--Peulle (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle, delisting where a superior replacement is promoted instead occurs a handful of times a year. It typically happens when someone takes or uploads a better copy of an artwork or historical (restored) photo, but can also occur if a user re-processes their own photo (either with more resolution or better processing technique) and where they had not simply overwritten the old file. We try to discourage people overwriting files for artworks that have a different source for the JPG (though some users still persist in doing so against policy) so we can end up with several files for the same artwork that are of different quality (and often different colour/contrast/etc). It may also occur for illustrations improvements such as if someone creates an SVG to replace a PNG. For a photo of a natural subject, I guess if someone retook a photo that really was a superior direct equivalent then a delist/replace might be justified. But otherwise we tend to retain the old one. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle: I think that same image means "the same image", not similar image. --Laitche (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Different versions of the same image" means a different processing of the same image. It can include images taken in the same set with same composition too. But a different composition like dorsal and ventral view of same animal is considered different even though taken at same time. Same view taken in a different day is usually considered distinct as the other components in the composition will be different. Though the reviewers have a tendency not to promote so many images of the same subject, they usually allow two or three FPs of famous places or buildings. So the judging factor is usually a combination of how much difference in the composition and how important the subject is. J e e 11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there can be several different FPs of the same species of bird or the same building if there are several such images taken from the same angle and same conditions? Obviously, a night shot of a church will be different from a day shot, but if two photographers stand in the same place and photograph the same object, can both their images be FP?--Peulle (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little chances as the reviewers evaluate every images of a subject and vote in favor of the best. The difficulty is when a better image uploaded later. Such new images will be featured when nominated. We've a process to delist previous FPs; but it is rarely used and is intended for very low quality FPs, not to delist the second best. The "delist and replace" is a new process which is only used for replacing a newly processed image of previous FP. All these procedures are a bit complicated and we don't have a strong concept like only one FP as in VI. But reviewers are free to oppose a nomination if better images is available or whatever another reason they feel fit. J e e 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Peulle: Do you think if this photo would be featured then the previous FP should be delisted? --Laitche (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If one of them is much better than the other, I think so. But looking at them, they both appear to be of similarly high quality, so my question was simply: "should there be only 1 FP of that species of bird landing?" As I understand the Guidelines and , there can be more than one FP of the same subject ... however, if there are many photos of the same subject (e.g. 10.000 images of the Eiffel Tower) on Commons, I would say only very few of those can be FP, since the Guideline states: "The purpose of featured picture status is to recognize that an image is currently among the most valuable images—the top fraction of a percent.". Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, I will Support this image for FP but with the caveat that if you keep uploading these photos of egrets landing, the old images of them could be delisted as the new ones take over as FPs. Does that sound reasonable?--Peulle (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle: Well, it seems too late. I was uploading another landing shot, yet... --Laitche (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is IMO an FP photo. Charles, how many great paintings of cranes were done by classic Japanese painters? Would you also limit how many of those paintings to feature, independent of determinations of quality? Laitche has 6 FPs under Category:Ardea alba modesta. Perhaps that's a large number, to your estimation, but is it really too many? Too many for what? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If these were significantly different types of images or of especially quality, then I wouldn't have opposed. The sharpness is OKish but the water is strange and the contrast/composition nothing special. It's also too dark. Charles (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now the last half of that would constitute a valid oppose. PumpkinSky talk 12:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think people reading will react to criteria like that as reasonable and are less likely to push back. By the way, I do like the bokeh better now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per Ikan. Well said. PumpkinSky talk 02:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit too dark in my opinion --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed 11:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak ~~Oppose~~ Support The bird looks not bad. But the water looks strange (posterization and chromatic noise as far I can see). Also the picture is too dark. Maybe the exposure time (1/2000s) was too fast. --Hockei (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, so I changed my vote. Still weak because of the water, but the Bird is great. --Hockei (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hockei, the background is water reflection of the woods. --Laitche (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Martin Falbisoner , Charles , PumpkinSky, Ikan Kekek , King of Hearts, W.carter, Uoaei1 , El Golli Mohamed , Hockei. I uploaded new version (Brightened. no-downsample, no-crop. But the water was actually like this so I cannot fix it) then if you would like to change your vote please do so. --Laitche (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC) And reload (ctrl+F5) please. --Laitche (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I already supported, but I agree, the new version is better. PumpkinSky talk 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is for sure better. Maybe some de-noising would still improve, as the background is quite noisy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too blue, especially the feathers in shades. Noway comparable to existing FP. J e e 03:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose It is a good photo of a bird, but the shade on head/neck dulls its appeal a bit, and the previous FP was a far more remarkable image of more-or-less the same subject. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin : The previous FP is the right side and this one is left side of the bird... --Laitche (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, in that case.... -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the existing FP more. The subject of both photos is the bird, not the water, and the older one does this better. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes

File:KPU Tobidongsan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 13:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Altostratus - uploaded by Altostratus - nominated by Altostratus -- Altostratus (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Altostratus (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose Posterisation all over the picture. --Hockei (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wouldn't exactly call this posterisation, just lack of detail due to mobile camera. There are times when a good mobile camera have been able to capture beautiful landscapes for FPs but unfortunately, for such a detailed scene as this, it is not enough. --cart-Talk 22:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blotchy, lack of detail. PumpkinSky talk 02:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if technically perfect, the composition does not make it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others except for Daniel: If this composition had been technically fine and perhaps at least twice as big, I probably would have voted for it. I surely understand why you liked the motif and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:One of the scenic locations of the Oukaimeden village.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 18:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by MED.BENALLA - uploaded by MED.BENALLA - nominated by Reda benkhadra -- Reda benkhadra (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Reda benkhadra (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, and definitely not the first thing people from outside the country would think of as a scene from Morocco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love the composition. PumpkinSky talk 18:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is snow in Morocco!?!? Even the very blue shadows work here. --cart-Talk 22:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. But please add geo location. --XRay ^talk 05:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous composition. Not the sharpest and a tiny amount of CA but both are minor issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the juxtaposition between the splendid natural scenery and the traffic jam ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Stormy Srinagar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 16:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info The Pir Panjal Range viewed from Srinagar, some 60 km away, on a stormy but clear day. Total prominence of the hills compared to the valley floor is ~2900m. The black specks in the air are mostly Pariah/Small Indian Kites with the odd Crow mixed in. In case you're wondering the original had levels adjusted only (with some annoying radio towers disappearing). All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info --I updated the image after applying a color (only) noise reduction treatment and adding a color profile. Sting (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but will revert (and add srgb profile). This is a case of trading noise vs banding - the denoised image is banding badly at the bottom. :( -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me were I introduced banding so I try to correct it? In the original, almost the whole bottom is already full black or level 1 (of 255). Sting (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I removed undesirable color information (color noise), I didn't modify the luminance noise (~grain). Sting (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where I saw it most noticeably is below the hills but above the tree line. Load both versions and just tab back and forth, you'll see what I mean. Or 2 layers in PS. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I checked it but sorry, can't see anything like banding, at least nothing more that already exist in the original image. My monitor is fine and calibrated. Sting (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Very nice view and mood. The luminance noise or the dark foreground doesn't bother me in this case. I only wished a larger image because this panorama deserves it. Sting (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood and the birds add to the storm-feeling of the photo.--cart-Talk 22:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Really has the feel of a still of a portentous scene in a movie. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Beautiful composition and contrast, though a bit noisy for 5.7 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small for such a landscape photograph. As the EXIF is missing, we don't know which size the camera provides. Maybe KennyOMG can provide a reason for the small size? --Code (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was shot with a 5D (original), and single frame cropped. Not sure since when is an image being 6mp a reason to oppose but ok. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny, you can use {{Photo Information}} or {{Camera}} in file page if EXIF is not available. J e e 03:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too grainy. Charles (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others plus lower part is too dark --Cvmontuy (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful, but grainy and small resolution. -- Pofka (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I afraid it doesn't appeal too me. Too dark. Plus I agree that 6MP isn't really "among our finest" for landscapes these days, unless the image is amazing. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, expertly captured mood prevails over technical deficiencies. Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful scene but the darks are really dark and reduces the submersion factor that draws one into a scene. Atsme 📞 02:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, too grainy and not enough detail for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valašské muzeum v přírodě - Mlýnská dolina. Hamr.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 13:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, I like it. :) --Peulle (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Altostratus (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but it need "Location"/coordinates. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes. (+1 on those coordinates) --cart-Talk 16:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything it perfectly historic and appropriate to a blacksmith's shop except the teacup ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
| Where is it ? Cannot be supported by me without geolocation...--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this is open air-museum in Roznov, Czech Republic :) I added location --Pudelek (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - love it!! Atsme 📞 21:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the geoloc, Pudelek. --Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Monjes de la Pacana, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 26.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 08:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View of one of the "Monks of the Pacana", huge rock formations created by the erosion of the wind and located near the Salar de Aguascalientes, Los Flamencos National Reserve, northern Chile. All by me, Poc o² 08:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, but please add geo location. --XRay ^talk 15:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poc o² 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But what's the point of that little cairn off to the left? Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g. balaxaZe★ 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Poco !--Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 20:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Laundry-Lady-in-Mai-Chau,-Vietnam.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 15:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Steven C. Price, nominated by Yann (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Thennicke (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another very National Geographic image. I can practically smell the clean ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 03:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Variegated grasshopper (Zonocerus variegatus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 20:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful insect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Ikan and very sharp and focused. PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The artefacts in the bokeh are just a little bit distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have no problem with the bokeh. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.--Peulle (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the markings!! Atsme 📞 16:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But per KoH the bokeh looks odd. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 03:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide 19.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 18:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Pinus sylvestris .
Info Walk across the Hulshorsterzand/ Hulshorsterheide. Pinus sylvestris in a hilly sand drift. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is insufficiently interesting to me, with a tree jutting out of a centered horizon. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the wow is missing. Atsme 📞 13:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too usual to be featured picture. -- Pofka (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I actually like the composition and the starkness it demonstrates, but unfortunately it's a little too noisy (and it doesn't need to be ... perhaps someone was too zealous with the sharpening?). Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, another version[edit]

Support -- Famberhorst
Oppose In this one the crop on the top cloud is too much. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:BustoManuelBelgrano-Tandil-may2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 21:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bust to Manuel Belgrano, Tandil, Argentina

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 22:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp enough for me, and I find the lighting dull. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I tried from RAW to improve the sharpenning and the lightning Ezarateesteban 22:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it's darker. I liked it better before. Now, it looks like there's less contrast and everything is gray. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Distracting background. Also strong barrel distortion visible there. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek.--Peulle (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all Ezarateesteban 11:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Areál československého opevnění - Hlučín-Darkovičky 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 13:03:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft focus for FP, IMO. It's nice to have a good photo of the T34-85 on Commons, though, it's one of my favourite medium tanks of the war.--Peulle (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Altostratus (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow is distracting. Yann (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karl von Drais tomb Karlsruhe 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 15:50:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez}}| -- Llez (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb of Karl Drais. Exactly 200 years ago, in 1817, Karl Drais (born in Karlsruhe, Germany, April 29, 1785) made the first ride with his new invention. The bike celebrates its 200th birthday this year!

Support -- Llez (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfect symmetry, good sharpness, nice colours... but the light is a bit too harsh to wow me. BTW, there are some CAs on the upper branches... --Basotxerri (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, I made some corrections--Llez (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's a worthy VI, but for FP it's lacking in terms of WOW-factor. I think I'd tune the sharpening down a little bit, but maybe that's just me. --El Grafo (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri and El Grafo. Light might have been forgivable, but the messy upper background is not. Looks like it was over- or misprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kits-Beach-Vancouver.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2017 at 01:20:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Xicotencatl - uploaded by Xicotencatl - nominated by Xicotencatl -- Xicotencatl (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xicotencatl (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please remove the dark spot above the evergreen on the right side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for noticing that! --Xicotencatl (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Cool idea but there's very little detail in the city part of the image - looks completely washed out. -- KennyOMG (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Kenny. That the problem with high contrast here. Maybe there could have been a bit less of the green frame, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I had to choose between supporting or opposing, I'd oppose. And it's not because of anything you did. I love the compositional idea you had, and it's very well executed. OK, maybe the view of the city itself is a bit bright, but that's not my real problem with it; rather, it's that the small opening in the trees shows boring buildings. If the view had been more enchanting, or if this view had been enhanced with very unusual light and clouds or something, this could have been a contender. As it is, it's quite good, but not an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the tree/view ratio is too low, and a crop would reveal too much the technical issues with the view (unsharpness, overexposure, posterization), I'd reshoot it with that in mind if you have access to the spot. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments, I cannot save this one. I may reshoot it in the future. --Xicotencatl (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mallorca Cala Figuera (Santanyi) Hafen 2016.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 12:39:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Otto Domes - uploaded by Otto Domes - nominated by -- Otto Domes (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Otto Domes (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not obvious what the subject is, and in that sense the composition could be improved (there's a lot of clutter on the sides). Nice colours though. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thennicke. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for your comments.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monasterio de Sanahin, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 52-54 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 12:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Church of Holy Mother of God Narthex within the Sanahin Monastery complex, Lori Province, Armenia. Sanahin literally translates from Armenian as "this one is older than that one", presumably representing a claim to having an older monastery than the neighbouring Haghpat Monastery. The Armenian Apostolic monastery was built in the 10th century in Armenian style and has become a tourist magnet. All by me, Poc o² 12:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Distortion and CA on leaves in upper reaches and middle of tree on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your feedback. I've removed the CA but there are still some HDR artifacts. They are fixable but in a second thought I rather take this one back. Poc o² 15:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Квіточка до Сонця ).jpg, not featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Infocreated, uploaded, and nominated by Swift11 -- Swift11 (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Swift11 (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, besides the lens flares and the overprocessing I find it rather small for such a landscape photograph. Nice mood, though. --Code (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code.--Peulle (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inappropriate way to relist the nom again. "For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2" Jee 09:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentPlease tell me more in this place!... -- Swift11
  - Swift11, you need to create a new nomination page by mentioning "Квіточка до Сонця ).jpg /2" in that box here and click on the "create new nomination" button. J e e 07:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rail tracks - high-key light.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 18:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info Testing, testing... Is FPC ready for an industrial high-key photo? I did not consider making this a high-key photo until I got home and saw the result from the photo session on my computer. The light that overcast evening had done some rather strange things with the track photos, leaving them with a lot of white and sharp contrasts, so taking it one step further was a fun no-brainer. Alright, I've put on my protective gear so bring on the reviews! (And yes, Daniel, I thought about calling it "Railway to Heaven" but such a name is not in line with COM policy. ;) ) All my me, -- cart-Talk 18:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 18:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but imho burning a picture does not constitute high key. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is high-key, then? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1. I thought it was the end-product that counted but maybe it's like with Champagne, it has to be made in a specific way to be called that. (Btw, this is one of the original photos.) --cart-Talk 21:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not a pro take this with a grain of salt, but to me high key is all about forms and shapes while low key is about silhouettes and endges. To me it's helpful to think of high key as "high fill" and low key as "low fill", as in: imagine a classic 3 or 4 light setup; high key will be with high fill when you blast the subject from both sides to make the shadows disappear and for low key just take away the fill and dial down the key (or even take that away as well, and rely on backlight like here). Also while high key usually comes with overexposure it shouldn't burn, preferably. Anyhow, the way this specific picture could work as high key, imho, is if 1) it was blanketed with ~~snot~~ SNOW! SNOW! and only the crown of the tracks would show or 2) in very thick fog where the vanishing point iss only meters away. My $0.02.

eta: maybe google high key landscape to get a better idea of what I'm saying.-- KennyOMG (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...blanketed with snot"... Ew! I'm trying to get rid of that picture in my head! Thanks for the info and the laugh (I know it's a dreadful typo). --cart-Talk 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Times when you wish there was no history of your edits on com. Sigh... :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support A good illustration of what burning can do to a photo ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Cart, as much as I enjoy your fresh ideas (by all means please keep 'em coming!) this one doesn't really work for me. And then there's also this discussion we had not too long ago about featuring photos taken on railway tracks … --El Grafo (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you won't escape my tests and ideas. :) Just to make it clear: This is not an active railway. In spite of that I have put no less than two caution texts on the file's page. --cart-Talk 08:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on me: I didn't scroll down to the description :-/ --El Grafo (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose cool effect but the tracks are...well...not exciting. If it was one infinite track...uh huh. Blowing out the whites is fun, so can we also use a tea stain effect or are color adjustments like that a no-no? Atsme 📞 03:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure actually, but we've had some interesting photographic techniques here from time to time. This is just me testing, you can't blame a girl for trying. --cart-Talk 14:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I think we're done with this now. Thanks for all advice and comments! --cart-Talk 16:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abandoned bus in San Pedro de Atacama (Unsplash).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 14:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Pablo Garcia Saldaña, atmospheric shot widely published across the internet since taken in 2015, including derivatives such as by Penguin press - uploaded by Fæ as part of the Unsplash experiment. -- Fæ (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like his polarizer filter has gone rogue. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
- Frank I've read that the sky appears darker at high altitude (this is 2400m / 7900ft), so the effect isn't necessarily an over-strong polarizer filter . -- Colin (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This photo is just a bit grainy, and the composition might be improved by removing some of the sky, but since as you say this has been widely published as is, it's best to feature it without edits. And it is quite a striking image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - reminds me a bit of a scene from Into the Wild (film) Atsme 📞 03:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an FP for me; all that grain makes me think this is not "one of the finest pictures on Commons".--Peulle (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle, please consider that this is a 22Mp image. The noise isn't nearly so apparent at 8MP. Also the sky is a continuous tone, and a little grain there helps avoid posterisation in our 8-bit JPGs. While most Commons FPC regulars would have masked the sky to avoid increasing noise when sharpening the image, elsewhere people seem to not be so bothered what the image looks like if magnified 1.5 metres wide and viewed from 50cm (100% view). While we are used to seeing less noisy images pass FPC, I'm not convinced such pixel-level "defects" are so important any more with the future being high-DPI displays on desktop, tablet and phone, and the noise here being completely invisible if printed 300DPI. -- Colin (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considered. My opinion remains.--Peulle (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 11:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Horizont is tilt --The Photographer 12:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, low quality. --Hockei (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. Too dark inside of the bus, I'm pretty sure some structures could be visible.--Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, too much uninteresting sky: composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others -- Thennicke (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Kitesurfer at sunset, Workum, may 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 17:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun
Info all by me Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a beautiful picture, and I promoted it at QIC while remarking that I was willing to tolerate the noise on the people in the lower left corner as part of the whole. But for FP, I believe it is essential for you to de-noise the picture where necessary. I do not think that level of noise is acceptable, and I will probably feel impelled to vote against a feature if it is not remedied. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed noise - I hope it is okay now or tell me. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - Not perfect, but much better. I'm quite interested to see what others think, but I like the mood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support no Made a change in the Wow factor for me. Atsme 📞 03:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ^{13:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
Comment Hmm, a much tighter crop could improve the image a lot. You should remove the group of people (that isn't interesting anyway) - then we'd have a compo of roughly 2/3s sky, 1/3 beach/sea. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done a cropped version. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, also pinging the other voters Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz, Atsme --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. It's a much cleaner or more polished photo now, if that makes any sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wasn't bothered about the previous crop, but this one works. The kitesurfer composition is great. -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun may be a better FP gallery now. J e e 11:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - new FP gallery added. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 11:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The kitesurfer puts it over the edge, brings it up to 11. That crescent-moon shaped kite near the sun makes you want to look and see what's going on. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring for me. People walking on the beach and a kitesurfer. OK, nice, but not more. And I don't like the dark spots on the people (noise). --Hockei (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Lizarraga - Hayas y sima 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 20:19:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me: Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but nice. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 10:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 22:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vertical crop isn't working for me and seems arbitrary. The sky and tree on top are nice but handled better in File:Lizarraga - Haya y nubes 01.jpg, though that photo seems lower in detail-resolution than the MP would suggest. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Basotxerri: Wow, why wasn't THAT one nominated? -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --cart-Talk 16:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the comments. I'll give it a try, too, as soon as I can. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'd like anyone to please explain to me what I'm missing that you saw in this photo. Of course it's a well-taken photo, the light is interesting and the rocky landforms are interesting, but I don't see anything great that would make me want to feature this photo. I'm not voting against consensus and don't think there's anything wrong with the photo; I'd just love to read any analysis that gives me some inkling of what's great in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't talk for the others but for me it's about the light, colors, serenity. I guess I'm like you, just on the other side of the fence: I can't find any reason not to support this nom. It doesn't really have flaws (the crop Colin mentioned comes closest) and is pleasing to look at. Evidenced by me coming back here to look at it and seeing your question! ;) -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to leave your thoughts, I appreciate that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain

File:Five cents of U.S.A of the 1964.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2017 at 22:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much glare. File:Monnaie de Bactriane, Eucratide I, pile.jpg is an example of an FP with well-controlled reflections. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That coin is also in better shape, though it's much older. I think the color of the nickle is too dark, or else it needs to be washed with soap. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question How and why is that specific coin extraordinary ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally because is a my pic Jebulon,i'm famous ....I joke....probably this pic isn't a great job --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - color is off. Atsme 📞 16:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per other opposes. Daphne Lantier 21:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 08:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baleine à bosse et son baleineau 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 05:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created &uploaded by Jérémie Silvestro - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Description by the photographer: "Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) near its whale calf, leaping out of water to keep away males. Taken offshore (Tahiti, French Polynesia)."

My comment: This is not a whale portrait but an exciting image of a whale in action, with attendant flying spray. I don't consider the fact that we can't see the whales' faces a detriment, let alone a disqualifying detriment, nor is the spray a detriment - they're all part of a depiction of an event, a specific act by a mother whale, protecting her child. Also, for the record, this was judged in Consensual Review on QIC, but ultimately passed 6-0. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course it is technically weak, but the image is FP level in content and composition. Charles (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 12:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! If only I could be so lucky to capture such a shot!! Atsme 📞 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's very nice of you to say, considering that you have taken "lucky" photos of marine life that are better than this one. :-) Of course I was wowed, too, which is why I nominated this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow indeed! --Schnobby (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Laitche (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not as sharp as one might hope, but, hey, either you get this shot or you don't. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much per User:Daniel Case, having spent more time than I want to admit at sea, this is great photo. PumpkinSky talk 16:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Eligma narcissus-Kadavoor-2017-06-04-002.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 04:56:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created & uploaded by Jee - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jee's file description: "Eligma narcissus is a moth in the Nolidae family. It is found in the Oriental tropics and subtropics. The larvae feed on Canarium and Ailanthus species, including Ailanthus fordii and Ailanthus triphysa. Young larvae skeletonise leaflets, while older larvae are defoliators." I think this is an extraordinary picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks Ikan! J e e 05:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you for taking and uploading this photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 05:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite excellent. Charles (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely! Atsme 📞 14:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support, because it is a bit too dark, otherwise very good. --Hockei (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 02:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Hosta two-tone 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 11:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info created and uploaded by PumpkinSky - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 11:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely, rich shapes and light. -- cart-Talk 11:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic; bonus points for no slug damage! Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we need species id for plant images? Charles (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Charles I did not find it in the rules at the top of the FPC page, but maybe it's required by long-standing practice. I agree it should be preferred at least. I'm too new to QIC/FPC to know the answer, but this is a Hosta sieboldiana, cultivar "Yellow Splash Rim" (the yellow part often looks like a pale green). Hosta montana is an oft-used synonym for this species. I will add this to the photo description and adjust categories as needed. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Charles (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cultivar; and so named Hosta 'Yellow Splash Rim'. The other cultivar Hosta 'Yellow Splash' seems different. I'm not sure whether this is a Hosta sieboldiana cultivar. Better ask a plant expert here. J e e 10:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jkadavoor This page and This page tell us that H. montana is synonym of H. sieboldiana. Way at the bottom, this page tells us that the yellow rimmed hostas are H. montana. Of the yellow rim-type cultivars, I don't think this is a 'Francis Williams' nor 'Yellow Splash' (so we agree on that one). It appears to me to be a 'Yellow Splash Rim', though if someone said it was a 'Aureomarginata' cultivar I couldn't argue as they're very hard to tell apart. While I'm fairly comfortable with this being in the sieboldiana group based on the links I've provided; I have no problem asking for WP:Plant project verification. I will go do that now. Thank you for your comments and interest. PS, I really enjoy looking at the photos you upload. PumpkinSky talk 10:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion is whether it belongs to Category:Hosta sieboldiana cultivars or Category:Hosta cultivars. Hope we'll get a help from the WikiProject Plants. J e e 14:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 10:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely texture. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and noise artefacts. --Hockei (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales

File:Skeidi kirke portal 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 10:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeming more than a worthy QI here. The view through the doorway leads the eye to some modern streetlamps, which isn't very attractive or in-keeping. I think your File:Skeidi kirke portal 2.jpg landscape view shows more context. But the hard midday sun combined with a subject that isn't particularly wow doesn't help lift this to FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Do you think the other image could make it to FP or is that also too disturbed by the background? I wouldn't want to edit it out or hang a sheet in the doorway to obscure the modern lamps and signs since I don't like manipulating reality.--Peulle (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle, I suggest you ping me (as I'm doing here) otherwise I might not see any reply to an FP. I think the other one is better but not FP either. I'm not suggesting you alter the view through the door (though standing at a different angle may give a better view). The problem really is one of wow, rather than any technical flaw. -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Margaret Hamilton - restoration.jpg, delisted & replaced[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 15:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Draper Laboratory; restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace File:Margaret Hamilton.gif. J e e 16:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace File:Margaret Hamilton.gif. -- Colin (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Daphne Lantier 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace File:Margaret Hamilton.gif. Yann (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace File:Margaret Hamilton.gif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Great work Adam. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Thanks Adam; it did seem strange to feature an unrestored GIF -- Thennicke (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Could be nice see on description page more information about what was done in the restoration procedure --The Photographer 13:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Photographer: More than is already there? It's a fairly simple restoration, just had to work at 400% view for much of it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you did something else. I'm sorry --The Photographer 17:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Mind you, my definition of "Simple" is "does not involve reconstruction of missing elements, just fixing dust and scratches." The actual work was a fair bit, but you can't document every scratch, just say you removed them. In other words, "simple" and "easy" aren't the same thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 delist & replace, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted & replaced. Jee 10:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Héron cendré avec une couleuvre viperine à Ichkeul.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 21:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by Touzrimounir -- Touzrimounir (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Touzrimounir (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 22:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 02:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - It's a great capture, but is it possible to sharpen the photo a little more, without damaging it (I'd take "No" for an answer if that's the truth). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: thanks for your question, I will ask the photographer to do it @El Golli Mohamed: --Touzrimounir (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC) I tried to sharpen it a little more but it damaged a little bit the photo so I prefer it like that. Thank you El Golli Mohamed 13:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Could be on sun, seem to be sharpened, not so clear shot. --Mile (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too little contrast, which reduces the wow. If fixed I can support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC) with more contrast the head will be overexposed and the wings underexposed. Thank youEl Golli Mohamed 13:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough for a bird-in-flight at 10MP. Improves with a little downsizing e.g. 5MP. Many of our existing such images are much lower resolution than this. And this is more than just bird-in-flight, but also captures a water snake! -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Thank you El Golli Mohamed 13:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bird has captured the snake. The photographer has captured the capture.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support a rare shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual enough. Bon appétit! --cart-Talk 16:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare shot. --Cayambe (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a great moment. I agree with the others that it's just for this photo to be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the subject is difficult, but the photograph presents it very well. If the heron was a bit more in contrast to the background, it would be excellent. --Harlock81 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Laguna de Yahuarcocha, La Dolorosa del Priorato, Ecuador, 2015-07-21, DD 31-33 PAN.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 10:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of Yahuarcocha lagoon, near Ibarra, Ecuador. The lagoon was scene of the homonymous battle between Caras (50.000 soldiers) and Incas (70.000 soldiers) around the year 1500. That is why in aboriginal language Yahuarcocha means "Lake of Blood". The spot is also very popular in the country because the lake is sourrounded by the international race track “José Tobar”. The perimeter of the lagoon is 7.86 kilometres (4.88 mi) and it is 1.8 kilometres (1.1 mi) long and 7 metres (23 ft) deep. All by me, Poc o² 10:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the level of detail is beyond impressive (as always) I don't think the air was kind to you. The sky is kind of boring with half of it occupied by backlit clouds and the opposite side of the lagoon is washed out due to the haze making the difference between shaded and sunlit parts close to nil. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown clouds, alas, per Kenny. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see any blown clouds. Maybe the clouds on the left aren't ideal, but this picture sure has wow for me. When a better picture of this lagoon comes along, we can consider it, but that could take a long time, and I'd definitely support featuring this picture now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kenny, Daniel: as it was now two of you refering to the same issue I've reduced the highlights of the sky. Poc o² 08:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said backlit, not blown (in that regard it was fine I think but is obv better now). Sadly you can't do anything about the sun when it's in the wrong place... -- KennyOMG (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose The clouds look much better now, but somehow it still doesn't really talk to me as an image. --El Grafo (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g. balaxaZe★ 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 13:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldenburg - Schlossgarten 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 12:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me: -- Basotxerri (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Altostratus (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish there had been ivy on the other side, though, for symmetry's sake. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. I really like the shapes of all the surfaces in the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warwick Castle south-east facade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 06:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#United_Kingdom
Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- DeFacto (talk). 06:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DeFacto (talk). 06:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose Sort of unsharp at left, and might have benefited from stronger light and a clearer sky in background. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vistas de Praga.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 06:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Francisco Conde Sánchez - uploaded by Francisco Conde Sánchez - nominated by 松茸取りの翁 -- 松茸取りの翁 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 松茸取りの翁 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality for a static scene. A case could be made that the tone-mapping is excessive. And finally I think the tree in the top-right is distracting, composition-wise. It's pretty though -- Thennicke (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose essentially per Thennicke. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky, especially near the tree in the upper right, is badly worked. There are unnatural white spots. Nevertheless best greetings. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Thennicke. "A case could be made that the tone-mapping is excessive" ... well, that's putting it mildly. I've seen more restraint in old hand-tinted postcards. And as for the rest of the image ... blow it up and ... GAAAAAA! Just what is going on with those bridges and buildings? They somehow look oversharpened and unsharp at the same time. And they're horribly distorted. The only way this is featurable is if we were to want a picture illustrating misadventures in digital image processing, along the lines of "Now what exactly went wrong here?" Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case -- Wolf im Wald 11:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.10.02.-01-Fuerth-Odenwald--Gelbling-Colias sp.-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 16:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would vote for this picture, but is there any possibility of identifying the species of butterfly? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely no. Not possible. Read this discussion (in German). I had to take back my first species identification. Former Version. --Hockei (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identification does seem to be very tricky with this butterfly. Charles (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Well, I

Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support though I would prefer more space top right and less bottom left. The balance doesn't seem quite right. Charles (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My guess is clouded yellow Colias croceus. Hockei do you find the mirrorless much easier to focus and stay that way when shooting the small critters? Atsme 📞 03:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you mean. ... much easier to focus ... than what? I use the Panasonic GH-series from the beginning on. So I cannot compare with other camera systems. Mostly I use autofocus and adjust by hand if time is enough. But it's not always better than only autofocus. I hope I could answer your question. BTW, My guess is clouded yellow ... believing does not mean knowing.

--Hockei (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hockei, I didn't mean to confuse you. I was referring to MLU on SLRs. As for species ID, I included a link in my comment above. The link also shows pictures, and you can also Google "clouded yellow" which brings up lots of scientific data as well. There's no doubt your image is of a common clouded yellow. Atsme 📞 15:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp details of the butterfly and the flower. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Marsh fritillaries (Euphydryas aurinia) mating.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 14:52:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info This little butterfly (~40mm wingspan) is one of our most threatened UK species and has suffered a severe decline in recent years. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great capture! Atsme 📞 16:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite of this butterfly porn, I {{s}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basotxerri (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2017 June 7‎ (UTC)

Sorry Basotxerri, because of the Bot counting the votes you can only use that 'support' template once. Using it twice would result in you giving this photo two votes. --cart-Talk 08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, of course you're right. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 20:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 05:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A money shot . Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here the second * Support per Basotxerri :) Neptuul (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Certainly a good catch. But there is too much contrast. Maybe you can reproduce it so that the blackness for example around heads and abdomen of the right one is brightened? --Hockei (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy for someone to have a go, but not something I have the skills to do... 17:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Two busy little fuzzies. --cart-Talk 19:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Вниз по Черемошу ).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 17:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #Ukraine
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Swift11 -- Swift11 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Swift11 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though I have trouble believing the colors my this is a PRETTY picture! -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice but very small. Is this the original size? Also, please insert the category and the photo creator and uploader information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a 3MP image, out of a 10MP camera (Nikon D80), so I have a hard time believing that this is the full resolution. @Swift11: , could you please upload the full-resolution image? It will make this nomination a lot more likely to succeed. Thanks -- Thennicke (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed The size increased -- Swift11
  - @Swift11: Thank you very much. Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 05:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - If this is the full size, it's still pretty small. Whether it's one of the creme de la creme of landscape photos on Commons is definitely open for debate, but I like the mood and composition enough to vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per low resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is nice, and I like winter pictures in summer. But I would like to understand what I see - so please add an English description, and geocoding data. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Added a description in English, geocoding data -- Swift11
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 06:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:90-year old Kate Carter in North Carolina log cabin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 03:23:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Carol M. Highsmith - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The original photograph is very good, though small, but when it was edited, somehow, some blue lines were put into the upper left corner. Those need to be removed before this photo could be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed -- Thennicke (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support PumpkinSky talk 11:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support how utterly depressing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be tough to confront, but she was 90 and alive, and perhaps she was really enjoying her life. I spent 2 years living in what Americans would call a "shack", with electricity only at night and no running water, and they were 2 of the best years of my life! My neighbors all worked very hard and very few had much money for luxuries, but almost all of them had enough food, and they were by no means unhappy all the time. And very few of them made it to 90. (Rural East-Coast Malaysia in the mid 70s.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Life as it is. J e e 16:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jee. --cart-Talk 18:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very modern take on some of those classic Depression photos. For this reason I have resisted the impulse to say it would look even cooler in sepia tone—the modern color is part of the point (Also, if you're pixel peeping, take a deep breath before you look at the subject's feet). Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought I liked the cropped version in the file history better, but including so much of the roof has a very interesting effect. It makes her look smaller, and in combination with that enormous bed and her pose (with the feet not quite reaching the floor) she almost looks like a child. Love it! --El Grafo (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 06:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Aurora Australis Over the Tasman Sea from SouthWest National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 08:36:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Jamen Percy - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Identifying technical flaws would be very easy. I just don't - but go ahead and enjoy an interesting image. The composition is excellent and colors are vivid. Great idea and successful execution. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical flaws are there unfortunately. Charles (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Could easily be used to illustrate some "space cowboy" online game or a sci-fi novel. --cart-Talk 15:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's tilted --Pudelek (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image quality is pretty good for astrophotography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and CA also --Mile (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Nice wow factor, though.--Peulle (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support per others, especially Martin and cart. Yes, the photo has shortcomings, but I think that when we see a photo with this much wow, we should feature it, rather than holding it up against an ideal that we aren't being presented with. And let's keep in mind that this is a very large file. It looks quite good at full screen, and despite its shortcomings, it's still impressive at 50% of full size. And what a great composition! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. I couldn't help but hear that Steve Miller Band song, too, when I first saw this (yet another instance of the two of us thinking the same thing). Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What a cool song! I think you're a few years older than me, perhaps my brother's age (b. 1958) but maybe born in the early 60s. However, I share some of your taste (for example, I've liked pre-commercial Yes and Chicago since the early 70s). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just an aside for anyone interested: Jamen won astrophotographer of the year in 2015 for the aurorae category -- Thennicke (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Technical quality seems pretty normal for this kind of image. The halo around the silhouette is pretty strong, but I guess that's at least in part due to the 30s of exposure (you'll never be able to stand perfectly still that long). --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems easy enough to clean-up the specs (what appears to be lens specks on left) but love this image! Atsme 📞 14:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry no, due to technical flaws like CA, unsharpness of the space cowboy and chromatic noise. Excellent composition though. Disappointing, I would say.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and vignetting.--Jebulon (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per other supporters Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo et al. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would somebody who knows a thing or two about the night sky be able to put notes on the image labeling the nebulae? -- Thennicke (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Egretta garzetta, Sète cf05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 08:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I understand the difficulties of shooting this at 600 mm of focal length but I wish it was a bit sharper and the reflections in the water would be clearer (the water stiller). --Basotxerri (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the bird should be in focus and that the reflection is not good enough. Charles (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very sharp when a bit downsampled Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: @Basotxerri: I think my version was poorly edited, I uploaded a new version. I think this is visualy a good image, not all images have to be megasharp, here the mood/coomposition is the key IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment still stands and I don't think it would be FP even if the bird was sharp and not looking away from us. Charles (talk)

Comment - I like the composition very much, and ripply water is fine with me. I would consider voting for a feature if you'd redefine the photo as a land-and-waterscape with an egret, rather than a photo of an egret. As a photo of an egret, it's not sharp enough, but as a composition with an egret, I think you have a much better argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I don't understand "redefine". Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In another words, change the filename and description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll live with this photo for a while. Arguably, the plants could also be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated to upload a downsampled image, with a size still reasonable for wildlife photo, but after this dicussion and the comments made by Colin, I uploaded the bigger resolution... @Colin: , you're right, there are inconsistencies, or upload the biggest version, or we prefer to content the little buddies... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point - it's a very large photo. You could have addressed this a little less harshly, though. I'm not sure if you meant to be very harsh, but "prefer to content the little buddies" comes off as very harsh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's the thing: I would like to regard this as a land-and-waterscape with a bird in it, but you are either defining it as a bird picture or a picture of a particular species of plant. The size of this particular photo aside, I think that pictures that are expressly of particular plants or birds, not of landscape that includes them, should be expected to be sharper. Do you see what I mean when I say that "Landscape with Egret and [Name of Plant]" has a very different feeling than "[Latin name of plant] with [Latin name of bird]"? The first photo is being presented as artistic; the second is being presented as an encyclopedic or scientific illustration. We are currently having a debate about this issue in Consensual Review on QIC, and I've been arguing there for disregarding the stated intention of the photographer and just looking at the photograph and judging it to be a cityscape with pigeons, not a photo expressly of pigeons. However, on FPC, I think that the way a photograph is presented can be an important consideration. And even on QIC, my view is losing and the stated intent of the photographer seems to be carrying the day (causing the photo to fail CR). Please note that I am not saying I will vote against this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to study the photo better later, but Ikan, you mention the "stated intent of the photographer" and "the way a photograph is presented". I do often suggest that nominators say something when they nominate the image. If you recall from the Tower of London ravens, I tried to offer it " not as a plain species identification photo but as a fun portrait of two characters". But I said that in the nomination, not in the file description nor filename. I don't think that "As a photographer, this is how I want you to judge my photo" belongs in either the filename or file description. Nor does our file renaming policy permit changes merely to suit the interests of FPC/QIC. Different people will take different things from a work of art/literature. I'm no student of such things, but my understanding is that art/literature criticism rejects the idea that the artist has priority or the final say in how their work is viewed. That aside, I think the mistake Christian made here is to suggest his reason for thinking this is FP standard is the "mood/composition" only after two negative reviews. Of course, my comments on the Ravens photo didn't stop some judging it as with all our other species identification photos, so no approach works reliably. We are still at the mercy of how reviewers wish to judge, whether they are in a good mood, or inclined one way or the other, and all the more so at QI where a single reviewer typically has the only say, and there little scope of influencing them prior to review. I think wrt to file resolution, filename, file description, one should aim to deliver the best one can for our educational mission and wide publication usage, and not shape any of those just in order to gain FP/QI to the detriment or confusion of some other educational aim. Nominating here and at QI is always a roulette wheel. -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points. And not that it's a reply to anything you said, but I think I need to live with the photo a little more, spend a few more periods of time moving my eyes around it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think unfavorable light is the main issue here; top lights making the eye, beak and legs in shadows. J e e 09:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jee, without wishing to offend anyone, it is by far, for the moment the most interesting and most relevant review. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support after retitling. Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Whether this is one of the very best photos on Commons is a difficult question, and I don't know the answer, so the question I instead deal with is, now that I've contended with this composition for several days, do I want a wider public to have the chance to do so when it's featured? And to that, I answer Yes. It's an interesting composition which is good for someone who wants to spend some quiet time in contemplation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Justice W140 (St. Christopher).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 01:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Water transport
Info created by Gabs - uploaded by Gabs - nominated by GABS -- GABS (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GABS (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The top crop is very tight on the masts. Is there any more room on top in the original? Daphne Lantier 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know the answer to that, too. I'd like the photo to go further up and also further down for more reflection. But I'll Support anyway, per Thennicke. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Daphne Lantier & Thennicke, thanks for the suggestions. I used a different RAW that had more space at the top. Got more of the reflection in the water but unfortunately I could not get the whole reflex, there is a formation of sand and stone on the right side and a bastard duck on the left side, adding them would create distraction on the foreground. GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The image is wow enough that I will forgive the composition -- Thennicke (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In fact, I did not even try to work on a better composition. I shot it just to illustrate the article in the Wikipedia about the boat, so I put it dead center and very tight, my bad. GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, by composition, I just meant the crop, which cut off the mast - I'd assumed you took the image like that, but since you've updated the image, it's fine. Putting it dead center and very tight is often a perfectly appropriate way to compose a photo, especially of an object such as a boat -- Thennicke (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I would oppose if the crop cannot be sorted. I would like more space at the top and the whole of the reflection at the bottom. And I think it's tilted.~~ Charles (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Charles, thanks for the suggestions. Crop was fixed. I also used the LR Straighten tool to correct the tilt according to the horizon line. GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support WClarke 16:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose too tight, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Martin Falbisoner, thanks for your vote. Since I updated the image, would you reconsider? GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

better, (weak)

Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Nice colors, but bow and stern look a little weirdly processed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Daniel Case, thanks for your vote. Since I updated the image, would you reconsider? GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Crop is to tight, especially at top.Daphne Lantier 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Daphne Lantier, thanks for your vote. Since I updated the image, would you reconsider? GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now we're talking! --cart-Talk 13:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool shot! Atsme 📞 15:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Fenster im Dormitorium -- 2017 -- 9972.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 05:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great idea! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice overlay of grid on the almost abstract forms of the house. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As for me, nor the foreground (the "frame") neither the background (the bricks) are sharp enough... Excellent attempt though, the compo is very beautiful.--Jebulon (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /XRay ^talk 18:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany

File:Laguna Cañapa, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 70-74 PAN.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 04:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of Cañapa Lake, Bolivia. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by TheAmerikaner (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheAmerikaner (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination, TheAmerikaner! It is indeed a nice one! There are some stitching issues, though, that I'll fix tonight Poc o² 06:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed the stitching issues I saw, please, let me know if you see any others. Poc o² 08:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if it's on my screen. The grass, or the plants, in the foreground look somewhat crusty. But I find the picture very successful. Best regards. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yet another great South American panorama by Diego. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful Lagoon in Bolivia --The Photographer 12:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Charles (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 02:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But it takes a lot of time to review such big works through my limited Internet. J e e 16:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --(for now) Comment But still, one of your best images in term of density of colors of that area. I didn't check it close, but there's already a problem of color balance: very magenta in the mountains. I known, it's a very tricky region, I have this problem in mines too. I will try to propose here an edited version of this photograph this w-e. Sting (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sting per consensus at talk FPC, please don't nominate an alt here without the nominator/creator's permission. Colour balance issues are best fixed on the raw files, rather than trying to alter JPGs, so I'm sure Poco could apply a fix if required. I don't know what the rock colours are here, so perhaps the mountains are somewhat coloured. Perhaps best approach would be to upload your suggestion to Dropbox for others to comment on whether it is an improvement. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sting, Colin: I've no problem with alt versions but surely agree with Colin that creating one of the RAW file would be more suitable. I find a oppose really harsh as I was there and cannot confirm that we are actually facing a WB problem. Still, I can give it a try and upload an alt but it will have to wait till tomorrow. This weekend I'm attending a Wikimedia event away from home. Poc o² 09:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear what can be a misunderstanding, the color balance is not wrong on the whole image but on the distant mountains here. That’s a characteristic I noticed there in Atacama: red/brown mountains with blue sky reflection/haze turns them in purple, while on close range the salt, slightly yellow/orange from dust, with cyan/light blue reflection turns it green. Add a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer, pushing to 100% the green and magenta saturation and you will see what I mean. And there’s no way to make a one-step global correction: add a Color Balance adjustment layer, trying to correct the magenta cast (keep the Hue/Saturation layer on for illustration) and you will get a too green foreground.

The Raw is useful for bringing back darks and highlights but there’s no need to go back that far in the post-processing to correct a local color balance and I doubt anyone would do that for a panorama. Working on a 16 bits file is perfectly fine for that task, as well as easier. Sting (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colour balance is exactly the sort of thing that gets fixed in a raw file, as the raw file doesn't yet have one assigned. But what do you mean by "local colour balance". If you mean fixing small areas of the image you think are the wrong colour, then I'm not sure that is justified here. -- Colin (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add a Color Balance layer to the upper part of the mountains with +20 of red and +20 of yellow in the midtones (approximate values just for a rapid check) and you will see their colors pop up again and that there's a magenta cast on the original file. Sting (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would Poco want to fix 2 hills on the sides with "purple cast" while the middle hills, that are also further out, are not "affected"? Maybe shooting with an UV filter would've helped, maybe not (not sure if it's an issue at 2400m) but point is: if it affects only part of the image, isn't it just a natural phenomenon? Then why would anyone want to "fix" it? -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital cameras don't need UV filters (other than as a protective filter if desired). -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

clear glass filters provide better quality at a lower cost...

--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, my information comes from LensRentals Blog and other writers. It seems the most important factor is the quality of the multi-coating, which can mean transmission is >99% or as poor as 90%, which will affect flare/sharpness as well as exposure. I have not found it easy to buy just a "protector" filter compared to buying a UV filter. Just in case anyone interprets your comment wrongly, "clear glass" on its own, with no coatings, would be a very bad choice, as would a really cheap ebay filter. The point about colours is that I understand that digital sensors are not affected by UV light in the same way as film was. I don't know if altitude has an effect, other than making the sky deeper blue. Another factor that can alter colours in subtle ways is the calibration profile chosen in Lightroom/ACR such as "Adobe Standard" or "Camera Standard". -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I totally agree! Of course the quality of lenses' coating is absolutely essential. I do use high quality "clear glass" protectors (if need be... in the desert or on the beach, e.g. Most of the time I don't use protectors at all). It never ceases to amaze me, though, why people keep buying even more expensive UV-lenses in the digital age. As you correctly point out, sensors don't need UV filters - unlike photographic film. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've uploaded a new version (not a alt) with a reduction of the purple tones in the background mountains. To be honest I didn't upload a new alt because the differences are subtle to me and, Sting, I'm still astonish that this topic is a reason to decline. Declines should not be used to ensure that an issue somebody points out is actually addressed but should rather reflect whether the picture overall deserves or doesn't the FP star. I always adress all issues in my pictures. Sorry for not uploading it yesterday, I got too late when I came back home. Poc o² 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very conservative edit ;-D, but you tried. I would have done it also for the left and right mountains which present as well that color shift, but it’s your image and choice.

Don’t be astonished because I opposed: a vote can be changed (and I’m doing it right now, as I did before for an other of your panoramas) and doesn’t have any side effect for the result as it will remain a 100% support. If I did so: first, yes, it’s to catch the attention of the author about what I think is a problem in the image because, second, several authors don’t care trying to improve their image when someone points out an issue in a “simple” comment, and some don’t even care having some justified opposing votes as long as they reach the FP label. Just my 2 cents, because I think this FPC area can also be an exchange of experience. Sting (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Poco that an oppose here is unfriendly, Sting. It happened to me on another nomination because the horizon as <0.3° tilted, as if that 0.3° is the difference between featured and not, or a slight purple hue on the mountains is the difference between featured or not. Like the other opposer, you claim to do that in order to get your way, citing past example where nominator didn't make the change. Well this is not COM:AGF as most people are accommodating if there an improvement that can be made, but you should also respect the creator's opinion as to whether a suggested change is actually an improvement. I've seen FPC's damaged because someone opposed over noise and the image then ends up soft plastic, for example. And although here your oppose was not joined by anyone else opposing, it also killed off the supports too, so I think it was actually harmful to the nomination and you should reconsider your approach to be more trusting and respectful of the photographer who was there. -- Colin (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:2016.08.19.-04-Waldsee Viernheim--Nilgans.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 15:08:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's probably better than the existing 'head' FP, but should you delist File:Alopochen aegyptiacus - 01.jpg? Charles (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do that. It's not my decision. --Hockei (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really impressive closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent photo, and bravo Hockei on the delist question! There is no requirement that there be only one FP for type of photo. This is FPC, not VIC. PumpkinSky talk 02:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. I took a similar photo recently. These birds are not easy to capture. Always in motion. --Code (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Code: I think you should put that photo you took up at QIC and maybe even FPC. PumpkinSky talk 13:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinSky and Martin Falbisoner: Thank you, but I think my picture would fail both on QIC and FPC because of the motion blur of the feet. --Code (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I find the green background a little too intense. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the background! Almost looks like a studio shot! -- Thennicke (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 votes for you today...good jobs!--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The nares on the upper mandible line-up perfectly so you can see right through to the other side. Atsme 📞 15:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very firm photograph: the definition of the feathers is impressive --Harlock81 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes

File:Ilsenburg, Ilsetal, Ilsefälle -- 2017 -- 0143.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 15:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "salt being poured" is just the right amount of long exposure for an exceptional forest photo IMO. --cart-Talk 20:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -PumpkinSky talk 00:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A very beautiful scene but I feel the crop (esp. on the left and bottom) is a bit awkward; either we should see more, or we should see less. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 03:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I do wish that tree hadn't been there, although the rest of the photo overcomes it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I like the tree. It's like a frame. I think I'll visit this nice place again in some years. --XRay ^talk 15:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: It just feels like a headache bar. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I dislike very much these long exposure shots. But it is a matter of taste and I would have remained silent,... if the rocks were not so unsharp...--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the area in the center looks strange...out of place...Atsme 📞 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Germany

File:Kalidasa lanata-Kadavoor-2017-05-23-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 16:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info Kalidasa lanata is a species of hemipteran insect in the genus Kalidasa of the family Fulgoridae found in South India. The subject expert from Museum of Natural Sciences asked me to identify the host plant. I checked the site again and found plenty of them enjoying the sap of Ailanthus triphysa. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 16:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 16:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The aliens have landed! How nice of one of them to land and pause right in the middle of the DoF on the tree you were photographing. --cart-Talk 22:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is enjoying camouflage; so will not make any movement when threatened by a big camera. The bark color and the blueness in the wings matches very well and it was my niece found it. On the other hand, its nymph has warning coloration and running away when approached. J e e 02:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 02:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 05:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bug's nice as always, but lots of out-of-focus tree is not ideal. A 90 deg rotation and crop would be perfect, but you might not want to do that. Charles (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Charles. I agree; the OOF foreground is distracting. Regarding rotation, as you know a Mahogany will not have any lower level branches once grown up. So the insect is always on the main trunk. J e e 14:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a 2:3 crop. Better? (I kept the 1:1 details; but better if viewed in 80% size.) J e e 14:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do others think? We know now it cannot be rotated, but I'd still chop a bit off the left hand side. Charles (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in favor of the alternate version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Supporting the other version.--Peulle (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Pinging @Martin Falbisoner, W.carter, and PumpkinSky: , @Daphne Lantier, Yann, and Charlesjsharp: for opinion. J e e 16:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also fine. --Yann (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either one is OK with me. Daphne Lantier 18:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK too, take your pick. --cart-Talk 18:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one better, but the first one is fine too. PumpkinSky talk 20:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better Charles (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support forget to vote. ;) J e e 08:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

The chosen alternative is: File:Kalidasa lanata-Kadavoor-2017-05-23-003.jpg

File:Oceanografic Sea Lion Mouth 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 15:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Rafa Esteve, nominated by Yann (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus is not quite good enough for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Focus isn't perfect, but nonetheless it is a unique and interesting photograph. WClarke 16:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Treptowers, Alt-Treptow, Berlin, 1705252213, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 13:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Treptowers are a complex of buildings in the district of Alt-Treptow (Berlin, Germany). I've planned to take this photo since a while until finally the weather was fine and I had the time to spend the whole evening at the river spree taking several pictures of these buildings (while there was some kind of party going on around me). The one I like the most is this late blue-hour shot. It's a tone-mapped HDR picture from three single exposures (camera settings: ISO 400, f/8, 5s; 10s; 20s). I wish I had a 24mm TS-E lens, that would have been even better. But Lightroom did quite a good job in terms of perspective correction, too. A little amount of noise wasn't completely avoidable here and I dind't want to push the noise reduction too far because this would destroy the details. All by me -- Code (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's really well done, except the reflections of the lights in the water which are distorted. Can you sort? Charles (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, what are you expecting me to do? That's what the camera captured and I just can't change it. To be honest I find your recent critique of my pictures (see here and here) somewhat remarkable, but not in a good sense of the word. Don't get me wrong - if you don't like my pictures I'll be fine with that but don't suggest me to change things I'm just not able to change. --Code (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on this photo of yours because you used a 6 second exposure and the flag was therefore very blurred and I didn't like it. Why should I like it? Charles (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support A lot of these images are stitched, so if that was the case you could do something. As it's just one image, then obviously not, so you have my support. Charles (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was expecting this nom --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've experienced the same curving of reflected light, wonder what physics are involved here... --cart-Talk 18:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you have a dust spot in a very unfortunate place: just above the leftmost street lamp. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KennyOMG: I think I removed it. It was hard to find at all. --Code (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I only noticed by accident. :) The fix looks a bit weird, if you don't mind I uploaded my take to dropbox. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I looked at the picture on two different screens but I just don't see anything that looked like a dust spot any more. --Code (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ican see you cloned it out, all I was saying it looks weird now. See the .png in the dropbox link above for my take on it. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support on fixing the dust spot. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great! That very slight noise is pretty much nothing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picture-perfect scene. Only wish the lights were slightly less overexposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect -- Thennicke (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Atsme 📞 15:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Because it's a bit noisy. Especially visible on the water and around the lamp light right. But otherwise grandiose. --Hockei (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Christ Pantocrator (Church of St. Alexander Nevsky, Belgrade).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 08:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Christ Pantocrator, Church of St. Alexander Nevsky, Belgrade. My shot. --Mile (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How old is this painting? It looks very modern, wrt copyright. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, was looking for date, all i got is: started in 1877, finished in 1928-1929. Some parts inside are without frescos. Its it new or restored i dont know. And they are still doing something. --Mile (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Mile (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, presuming no copyright problems. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 02:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2017 at 10:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Maldives
Info Hammock on Thudufushi, Ari Atoll, Maldives. Lie down and enjoy all the beautiful images on FPC. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Productive vacation, I see. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A classic wallpaper scene, only this time it is shot by a photographer who actually knows what he is doing. So the light is flawless and we are not just shown paradise, we can feel like we are actually there, taking part in the experience. I have this photo as wallpaper on my computer at work right now. --cart-Talk 23:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the composition is suboptimal, with the rightmost bough too large and dark and blocking part of the hammock. The leftmost crop of the trees is also a bit awkward. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do get your point. Finding the relatively best position to take the shot was driving me nuts. For various reasons it was not possible to compose the image the way I would have preferred (i.e. reducing the visual impact of the right tree). I still can live with this compromise. Yes, the right trunk is a bit dominant, but it also helps create some kind of framing. Possible alternatives aren't really superior. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an added bit of info, if I may: I spent 2 months in the south pacific a while back and have nothing to show for it. Over that period I couldn't make a single shoot of palm trees/lagoon combo that I'd be happy with. It's probably "napolitana pizza of photos", ie people think it's so easy while in reality it's quite difficult to get a better-than-good result. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support First class A. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Milseburg (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I share all opinions... Please just remember that this paradise could disappear due to the climate change...--Jebulon (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - perhaps if both leaning trees were shown in full with hammock in the middle of an ocean background, it wouldn't look as chunky. It truly is a lovely scene, but I'm on the fence. Atsme 📞 16:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King & Atsme. Daphne Lantier 21:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King and Daphne. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, composition is not best here. Left tree was more important than hammock. Some sun could be helpful also. --Mile (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totally understand how this could drive you nuts. I'll have to agree with the other opposers though. --El Grafo (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, thanks everybody! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Кротките Осоговски планини.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2017 at 07:56:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Petrovnik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great find! -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this kind of multi-planar thing is the sort of picture I aspire to myself. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- +1--Jebulon (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geum rivale 'Leonardii'.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 04:27:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Rosaceae .
Info Geum rivale 'Leonardii'. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really stand out enough from our other pictures of flowers. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Longnose batfish.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2017 at 02:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info Photograph was taken underwater at about 30 ft. on a very sandy bottom with lots of coral rubble. I wasn't too far from shore where the surge was quite noticeable. It made focusing difficult and also kept the sand stirred up. Batfish are not common on Bari Reef - haven't seen another one anywhere near the island in over a decade. Batfish are quite skittish so it is very difficult to get them to sit still long enough for the sand to settle (sand in the water column=backscatter which can ruin the picture). They have a unique texture with a sort of algae-like overcoat so please don't mistake it for artifacts or CA. Created, uploaded, nominated by Atsme 📞 02:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atsme 📞 02:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 03:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love those lips. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{Pssst...Daniel - and the lipstick won't come off on your collar. Atsme 📞 03:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Support Mmm. J e e 04:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very wow! --cart-Talk 08:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know what quality one can achieve underwater, but I like this. Charles (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Charlesjsharp: I used to take underwater photos and it's not easy to get a really good one. Sand and other debris scatter the light, the currents are moving you around, and if your subject is a fish, it's 99.99% likely to be moving around too. PumpkinSky talk 10:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support compo isnt perfect, but fish is rare to see. --Mile (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good quality for the conditions. The lips are especially stunning. I've added the picture to the English Wikipedia page for the fish. --Kimsey0 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure how I scrolled through this without looking at least three times, mistake rectified now. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish

File:120408 Pheriche Pano 4k.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 07:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Faj2323 - uploaded by Faj2323 - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 07:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 07:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had this on my short list to nominate, too. Quite striking, and an interesting composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 12:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snow is blown out. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g. balaxaZe★ 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shishir 16:45, 6 June (UTC)
Support--Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 18:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Splendid composition, but blown-out snow as noted above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 05:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Blown snow doesn't dominate the image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 02:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's common for there to be small parts of a scene that your eyes can't even pick up all the detail in (too much contrast), so I think a small amount of overexposed snow is sometimes realistic -- Thennicke (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Vista de Mónaco, 2016-06-23, DD 12.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 05:06:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info General view of Monaco. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically it's somewhat ho-humm, the ~~left~~ right 10% or so is extremely soft and even in the middle you can see blotches where the hot air washed out details. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big file, QI and high EV, it's probably the best angle to view the principality Poc o² 17:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a nice scene, with beautiful colors. However I feel like the land takes up too little visual weight, with there being too much water all around. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current FP view of Monaco is File:Monaco Panorama 2015.jpg, a very impressive picture with nice blue skies. Of course this is a good photo, but it doesn't compare, in my opinion, and I don't like the diffuse light in the sky much. I think File:Vista de Mónaco, 2016-06-23, DD 15.jpg, which puts a tall building right in front of the viewer's face and has less and bluer sky, is a more compelling image, which I would probably vote to feature. The other QI in this category that, while imperfect, seems most appropriate to consider for FP would be File:Hafen und Felsen von Monaco-La Turbie.jpg. That one is a bit hazy on overly close inspection, but it's quite interesting to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well below the standards of Diego's other FPs. Washed out color (and the WB feels too warm) as well as poor detail in the city streets. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Karelj (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zahrtmanns Gård on Sct. Mogens Gade.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2017 at 09:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Sct. Mogens Gade is a very historic street in Viborg, Denmark. The building on the right, Zahrtmanns Gård, has a sign with a golden pastry (kringle) and text saying "The baker is unfortunately dead - so now he is not baking bread". -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this historic street, plus the evening light in April with the sun low and dark rain clouds coming. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great mood. If only the traffic sign were gone... but well. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It has a very nice, rather quaint feel to it...inviting. Atsme 📞 15:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --Hockei (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support So often we see streets like this and shoot away but the final result does not capture what made us do so. This is one that does. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice; the sunlit buildings really make the image -- Thennicke (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 04:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice even with cars and traffic-sign. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is from the town I live in and from a street I like very much. so I feel too biased to vote. But I do think Colin has managed to capture a very nice atmosphere here. The weather was in general horrible those days in April, and Colin has skillfully captured the street in a good moment using the heavy rain shower clouds and rare glimpse of sun to his benefit. The building to the right previously had a bakery, and a previous director of the local city museum Peter Seeberg - also a Danish modernist novelist authored the text on the sign. However, one day some years later he received a phone call. It was the baker. He just wanted to inform that the rumours of his death were exaggerated, but he had moved to a nearby town and opened a business there. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Búho nival (Bubo scandiacus), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 03.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2017 at 13:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Portrait of a female Snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain. The exemplar was kept captive as snowy owls are rather native to Arctic regions in North America and Eurasia. All by me, Poc o² 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Priceless expression! Well, if my little attempt at high-key photo made you dig out this from your collection it was sooo worth it. :) --cart-Talk 14:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support love it! Reminds me of an elderly gentleman I had dinner with some time ago. Atsme 📞 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice :) --Laitche (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of some product logo ... maybe White Owl? (But maybe not ... there was some other product that used a closeup of the bird's face like this). Eminently memeable. Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive eyes. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might have been a bit sharper, but I like the wow factor. It's like the bird looks at you, thinking: "B!tch, please, don't gimme any crap or I'll tear you to pieces." Great meme material. :D--Peulle (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Panorama vom Simmelsberg im Winter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 14:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Wintry panoramic view from the Simmelsberg in the Rhön Mountains in Hesse, Germany. See annotations for further description. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, with great handling of light and shade and excellent focus. If this is a 360° view, please state that clearly in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done This viewpoint offers 240°. --Milseburg (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neptuul (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one that makes me feel the ache in my calves. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sunlit part of the town in the valley is nice. Most of the rest is under-exposed or simply not lit (yet) by the sun and is just too much dark forest. As a panorama, it is far far too narrow in height, resulting in an arbitrary crop at the bottom left-half, and an unnatural view of the world through a slit. The viewpoint and subject have great potential, but for taking a photo where the photographer has chosen to focus on something and select what part is interesting to see. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be called a slit, because also in the hight it´s filling much more then 100% of the screen. Don't evaluate any preview. Further more I don´t agree that the image have to blown up with unimportant or uninteresting content such as simple snow on the bottom or empty blue sky at the top. The image don't want to select any elements to show but present them in the whole context as it can be seen from this viewpoint. See annotations what they are. --Milseburg (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Dojransko ezero.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2017 at 22:38:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by AngiùStan - uploaded by AngiùStan - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Initially thought it's a bit dark but it's just right. Maybe it could be better without either the house or the boat, not sure and anyway this is what we have. -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark for me, and too much blank space at the left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per KoH, a tighter crop might be better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Somewhat along the lines of KoH's commment: It's oppressively gray to me, and not because it's black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen this "dark" argument popping up over and over when an image is not stretched out all over the histogram, or when shadows are not lifted to/above the midtones. It ain't so. Anyone thinking this image is dark (which is easy to get to based on the thumb here) I ask you to save the image, open in a viewer fullscreen, give yourself 5-10 seconds to get used to to the dynamics and start to appreciate the mood it conveys. Then ask yourself: is this image too dark? IMHO nope it's not. Also @Ikan Kekek: just take a better look at the greys on the left and marvel at the subtle changes in shades and how they create water, air or mountains. $0.02 -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's subtle, but I'd like more light and might like a color version better. I guess I could be Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I downloaded the image, punched the shadows & highlights a bit, and all kinds of subtle details appeared that made the image grab your attention, so I agree that it needs a bit of adjustment to enhance the muted details. I will support it if that's fixed. Atsme 📞 16:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark or not, I'm just not enthused over the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cappella di Santa Restituta - Ceiling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 21:50:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In my opinion, this is like the third bowl of porridge in "The Three Little Bears": It's just right. This ceiling is a lot less flashy than most of the ones you photograph, but it's neat and has just the right amount of light, to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like @Livioandronico2013: , @Ikan Kekek: , @Daphne Lantier: and @Martin Falbisoner: . --TheAmerikaner (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look to my annotations regarding the tilts and distortions. The hexagons are too different between each others, does not look normal in my opinion. Some of the are for real, but not all, I think.--Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like Jebulon I had added a note about the distortion cited too --The Photographer 16:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending a response to Jebulon's notes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The roof is made of wood and (as can be seen in some parts) swollen by humidity .... I can not do anything. If you see the architectural part is straight ... thank you--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Chaumière Saint-Philbert2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2017 at 18:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a typical cottage with thatched roof and timber frame, Eure, Normandy, France. See the tide tile with iris.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a dust spot in the upper right corner and I'd recommend to add some contrast. Otherwise very good IMO. --Code (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Sorry and many thanks for noticing the spot. It is now corrected. Contrast ? I know it is incredible, but it was a sunny day in Normandy...--Jebulon (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The picture looks somewhat flat to me. Maybe instead of contrast adding a little bit of "black" ("black -15" in terms of Lightroom settings) would do it as well. However, I support this version as well. --Code (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely scene. Wrt Code's comment, it seems a rather high contrast scene already. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the cropped tree in the middle bothers me a little -- Thennicke (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely.PumpkinSky talk 13:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've never seen anything like it. So when it rains, are mudslides an issue? 🤣 Atsme 📞 01:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it works very well. Mud is to be planted whith rhyzome plants, or lichens, roots holds the thatch and keep it in place (with some iron wire under, too).--Jebulon (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Kefermarkt Kirche Flügelaltar Anbetung 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 16:13:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
Info Adoration of the Magi at the winged altar of the parish- and pilgrimage church Kefermarkt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master (called Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece), around 1497. Photo and nomination by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need sharpening --The Photographer 16:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The figures in back are a bit OOF; but I think it is unavoidable and add depth. J e e 02:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 02:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lizarraga - Haya y nubes 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2017 at 15:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. The dark clouds are contrasting very well to the green of the tree. --Code (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Code. Shame the image isn't a bit more detailed. Perhaps a longer shutter would have allowed better aperture for the lens, or lower ISO. -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I should have closed the aperture a bit but ISO 200 is the base ISO of my camera. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 20:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Very nice composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Very good art photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KennyOMG, if you didn't mention it, maybe I wouldn't have nominated this one. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the hat tip goes to Colin on this. It IS a great find. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Colin mentioned it first. Thanks! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Support Stark. You almost expect to see a dark robed figure with a scythe next to the tree. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a bit worried about my tendency to shoot these dark and gloomy scenes. But they are out there... --Basotxerri (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The grey clouds help complement the feeling of solitude. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. --A.Savin 23:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 01:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good spot --Mile (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain

File:Rock and Cytisus scoparius flowers, Rosis cf01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2017 at 18:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image that might make a great album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Code (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice indeed. PumpkinSky talk 13:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 01:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France

File:Медитація лева ).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 13:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Swift11 -- Swift11 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Swift11 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1) Why is there a closing parentheses in the file name without an opening one? It looks very odd. 2) Is it possible to get an English version of the description? I tried Google Translate with the Ukrainian language but it didn't seem to work very well. PumpkinSky talk 15:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1) ... ) - similar emoticon :-) 2) ...Lion's meditation -- Swift11
  - 1) I don't get the humor but no need to explain 2) RE Lion's meditation...that's the file name, but I was asking about the decription on the file page: "Надвірнянський район, Бистрицька та Зеленська сільські ради"...Google Translate spits out "Nadvirna district Bystritskaya Zelenska and village councils"...the village council part doesn't seem quite right and there's no connection to "Медитація лева", which I'm guessing is the name of the peak or it refers to that mass of snow on the left, which was maybe man made? PumpkinSky talk 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @PumpkinSky: I know you said no need to explain, but Russians often use just the ) character as their smiley emoticon -- Thennicke (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the snowdrift looks like a resting lion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment"Gorgany" Nadvirna district Bystritskaya Zelenska and village councils "

"Gorgany" - a nature reserve in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Located in the southwest part of the Ivano-Frankivsk region in the Gorgans area of Dovbushanka. But this administrative Reserve is located in the village council Bystrytska and Zelenskaya wich belong to Nadvirna. A "lion's meditation" - should be understood as – “lion” (snowdrift - the mass of snow in the lower left corner) is “meditating” in the nature reserve Gorgan, because it perfectly great even when the wind is knocks down (wind gusts is seen from the front). "Lion" was made by the wind, but not by the man!))) If You ask about the description - it is below links: "Flag of Ukraine.svg This photo natural monuments in Ukraine, id: 26-240-5052 PS.Leo meditating resting :-) And I'm Ukrainian! -- Swift11

Oh, sorry about that! I should've noticed -- Thennicke (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK :) I would like to discussions on pictures instead of names. Sorry, as a name and description did not like - I'm not a poet ... -- Swift11
  - Actually it helped me out quite a bit. I added an English description to the file page. PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special here and the file is very small (3.2 MP) -- Colin (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Colin -- Thennicke (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brooklyn Bridge Tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 04:47:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by Meihe Chen - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There's a degree of unsharpness on the sides at full size, but I think the photo deserves a feature, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me the composition looks a bit stagnant; compare File:Acueducto de Segovia 01.jpg for something which is in the same style but looks more lively. I like partially backlit scenes (e.g. 135-degree angle between camera and sun) when done well, like File:Musee d'Orsay and Pont Royal, North-West view 140402 1.jpg, but here too much is in shadow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for that clear statement. Of course I agree that the aqueduct picture is great, but it's a rather different shape than this bridge tower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sufficient for FP. Sorry. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moheen. Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haliotis laevigata 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 05:04:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created & uploaded by H. Zell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another great series of abalone shell pictures by Llez. (By the way, I'm not sure how to put this into a more specific gallery. What do I need between "Animals" and "Mollusks"?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I've completed the FP category. If it gets featured, it can then be added to Category:Featured pictures of molluscs. Daphne Lantier 06:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that. I still find this business of categorizing FP candidates a bit opaque. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I just copied it off of one of Llez's other shell FPs which is displayed on his userpage. Daphne Lantier 06:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 06:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination --Llez (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice! Atsme 📞 01:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Kalidasa lanata-Kadavoor-2017-05-31-003.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 02:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info This is a nymph of Kalidasa lanata. It will be black in early instar, and later changed to bright red as here. It has no wings; but can walk very fast and leap like a grasshopper. Not friendly as the adult I nominated below. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 02:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It has a very complicated shape; so difficult to get everything in focus. This is my best attempt; I think. J e e 02:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Support. About how big was it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan,it is 15mm long and less than 10mm wide. It has a curved body; so eye is 5mm below the middle body. The tip of the growth is in the same level of the middle of abdomen. It looks like a small tortoise. J e e 14:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tricky with big DoF needed. I like the head/eye always to be the best focus. Charles (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, here you can see clear focus on the eye and the flexible stalk-like outgrowth arising from above the tip of the snout. But the projected body is out of focus. Better? J e e 13:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A problem we all face J e e. The head in focus on the new one, but not the body. Neither works I'm afraid as FP - they would be fine combined though! Charles (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support sharpness is sufficient imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The visual impact and composition (head right between those two branches) overcome that little seemingly insurmountable technical shortcoming of the eyes. --cart-Talk 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual viewpoint for a bug photo. Works. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure a focus stack would be nice, but those darn animals have a tendency to move around. While I agree that normally the eyes should be in focus, I think in this case the patterns of the back are what makes this image pop. --El Grafo (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent observation, El Grafo. 1. As I stated in the previous nom, this nymph turned to one side to watch what I'm doing and made a huge leap to another branch and disappeared. 2. Yes; we can see those beautiful patterns only in the nymph stage. They will be covered by wings on adults. J e e 12:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is one thing I like with this photo, that it seems ready to just hop away. It lends a dynamic touch to it. --cart-Talk 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, never saw a critter like that before - Atsme 📞 03:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --Karelj (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I often looked at this photo and I really like it. But unfortunately the head and nose (?) are not sharp. Also I like the composition of the other one much more. --Hockei (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:MGR Memorial, Marina Beach.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 08:58:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can imagine what critics may come up with - I still like both idea and execution. Well done. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please add an appropriate category for the nomination. I won't vote here, because well executed as it is, there is something about this that gives me the creeps. Sorry. --cart-Talk 18:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Category added. Regarding voting or not voting, that's your choice. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - pretty cool. Atsme 📞 03:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 06:02:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Maldives
Info Water Villas on Thudufushi, Ari Atoll, Maldives. I like this picture for its rather reduced composition that arranges the stilt houses like pearls on a string in front of a background of basically just three colors - shades of white, blue, and green (and, ok, a little bit of brown). All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a slight border around the roof of each house? Seems so to me. Otherwise, very good, and I expect to vote to feature later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see any borders at the moment. But I'll check again tonight when I'm home. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems ridge tiles. J e e 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, or if there's any other reasonable explanation, I'll support the picture without hesitation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like how this does not look like all those "perfect" postcard/holiday catalogue images. It's close, but somehow you managed to make it look more "real". --El Grafo (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 08:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Haloes/CA on the villa roofs, and frankly I don't find the composition striking. Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming the CA will be taken care of. Also wanted to ask: on most of these the sky looks a tiny bit purple'ish, have you tried moving the wb towards green a few units? Is it awful that way (ie green cast on the bungalows, etc)? -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info ok everybody (Ikan Kekek, Jee, El Grafo, Daphne, Johann Jaritz, cart, Daniel Case, KennyOMG), I've tried to adress the issues. 1) Jee is right, the borders are in fact ridge tiles. This being said, I still reduced the sharpening a bit. 2) The sky isn't purpleish (just deeply blue) at least on my screen but I reduced purple and magenta a tiny bit nevertheless. Should be be better now. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the composition. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know what's your job,but i want do it! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Livio, managing a group of people primarily dealing with organizing sets of metadata in diverse databases is even less thrilling than it may sound

--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support THAT is where I'd like to be right now!! Atsme 📞 15:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Front view of Our Lady of Victory Church, Inuvik, NT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 01:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Canada
Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case.
As some of you know, I have been considering nominating this for a while. This is easily the most photographed building not just in Inuvik but probably the entire Northwest Territories, and I'd daresay all of Canada north of 60º. As we get into those long northern nights (and nonexistent Arctic ones) this time of year, I think about this trip again. -- Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the bird on top of the cross, which caps off the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support ^{- 03:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Daniel, am I getting cross-eyed or is that building out of round? Maybe it was the angle it was shot? The blue cross above the doors doesn't look straight when you look at the cross on top of the building. Atsme 📞 03:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

It looks like it might indeed be a little tilted. I shall fix it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful lights! J e e 04:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Canada

File:Purana-Kadavoor-2017-06-02-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 05:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods
Info Purana tigrina is a species of cicada in the genus Purana found in Southeast Asia. This is a newly emerged female. After moulting, they will find a sutable place and hang vertically. Their wings need to be inflated with the fluid and their skin will be harden prior to make the maiden flight. They are very helpless in this time and extremely vulnerable to predation. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 05:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 05:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, Sir! This was on my short list and would have been nominated by me within a few weeks. Great picture and a great moment to capture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV and pretty. --cart-Talk 08:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice though some voters may find the 'diagonal stem in the background to be rather distracting'! Charles (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Charles; I was aware of it. It is a grass blade; the subject is very close to ground. The brwonish background is unfocused teak tree behind. I hope the rarity of the moment outweighs this shortcoming. J e e 15:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great one! Another superb nature photo from you. PumpkinSky talk 13:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 13:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per previous nom that Charles refers to, the grass blade does rather spoil it as an image. But considering the subject is unusual rather than just "another butterfly" I won't oppose. -- Colin (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Cicadidae_.28Cicadas.29

File:Speerdistel (Cirsium vulgare) 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 04:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Asteraceae .
Info Flower bud of one Cirsium vulgare. This close up of the flower bud of a Cirsium vulgare seems like a piece of art. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting! J e e 04:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I noticed this on QIC. Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 08:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 09:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely natural pattern. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and crop above (cut parts of the plant). --Hockei (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - did a spider wrap it up? Atsme 📞 03:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Spider-belonging-to-Oxyopes-genus-feeding-on-an-insect.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 08:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by Deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Deepugn (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a sharp picture of an unidentified spider eating an unidentified insect. Charles (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not only per Charles but very busy compositionally. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spruce forest at Holma.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 21:26:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info In old, dense spruce forests such as this, only the top branches have needles and they block the light to the lower branches which wither and die off as the trees grow. The trunks become like huge pillars. The light and sound in these places are very special, they are almost exactly the same as when you are in a large, dimly lit cathedral, so these places feel almost sacral. All by me, -- cart-Talk 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel and hear the sylvan stillness captured in this image. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely, and inspires the age-old question...If a tree falls in the forest.... Atsme 📞 01:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice. PumpkinSky talk 12:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long time I viewed this photo. Though it is just a commercial forest but anyway I can feel the stillness. The composition, the colours (AFAICS) are nice and very interesting. --Hockei (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. This is the opposite of a commercial forest. It is on a high cliff on the border of two nature reserves, so it is pretty much left alone and untouched. The colors are very rich since this is between two rain showers. Water always makes these forests "shine". --cart-Talk 19:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard from or seen a pristine forest that looks so tidy and with so straight up grown tree (trunks). Thanks for the explanation. --Hockei (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is just this relatively small patch (about the size of a church) that is so tidy, all around it when you climb up to it, it is pretty messy as you saw in this photo. --cart-Talk 20:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 03:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Sweden

File:Valašské muzeum v přírodě - Valašská dědina 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 10:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 10:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI for sure, but the composition doesn't reach FP level for me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the composition is very nice (and 7) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. The image is nice but I'm not convinced of the left corner. It makes me think "I want to see a bit more on the left border, something is missing for the necessary harmony". --Basotxerri (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWhat I like most about the image is the house, wood pile, and overall woodsy feel. Perhaps if the crop had been horizontal rather than vert it would've been easier to judge. As a vertical, eyes are drawn to the canal, which isn't the most pleasant aspect. As a horizontal, the house, the wood pile to the left of the image, & the beautiful wooded surroundings would be the focus, but that's just me. Technically it's sharp and clean, and it's aesthetically calming. Atsme 📞 15:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place, nice image , good quality, but lack of a composition or atmosphere a little special. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Після бунту ).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 08:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #Ukraine
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Swift11 -- Swift11 (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Swift11 (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 10:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a Wow image for sure and speaks to all the reasons I wouldn't want to be there on a camping trip. Atsme 📞 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support clouds like waves... ---Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely texture. Lovely winter mood. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me the wow factor is "just enough to pass FP if everything else was good," so I cannot support due to the low resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed The size increased -- Swift11
Support Wow. Excellent. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm impressed like everyone else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:2016.08.19.-06-Anglersee Huettenfeld-Lampertheim--Herbst-Mosaikjungfer-Paarungsrad.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 14:53:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Deepugn (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 03:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality. Charles (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Charles. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Cancillería Federal, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 37-39 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 18:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Night view of the front of the German Chancellery building (in German Bundeskanzleramt), located in the heart of Berlin, Germany. The building, of postmodern style with elements of modernist style was opened in 2001 and was designed by Charlotte Frank and Axel Schultes. The iron sculpture called "Berlin" is work of Eduardo Chillida. The building hosts the agency serving the executive office of the Chancellor of Germany, the head of the federal government, currently Angela Merkel. All by me, Poc o² 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure I like this building enough to support this photo. I'll live with it for a while and see if it grows on me. It also seems a bit noisy at full size (admittedly a large size). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Very nice scene, but you could do something about the noise in the sky (which is already visible at 7.2 MP). I wouldn't apply a global NR which would cause further damage to the already precarious details, but a selective NR on the sky would help. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done - but please reduce the noise a bit --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 05:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I second King's concern about the noise in the sky. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Poco, I know you consider it impolite to oppose based on correctable noise; therefore, instead of opposing, I am pinging you. Please decrease the noise in the sky. Once that's done, this is a deserving FP, though I will probably not vote for it because I just don't find looking at this scene rewarding - no fault of yours; it's an important building, but it annoys me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys, I usually need one person to point it out and I will improve it as soon as I can. I do have a work and life outside Commons, please, be a bit more patient. Will upload a new version latest this evening, it will require a bit of time. Poc o² 11:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, I understand and won't do it again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan Kekek, I have uploaded a version addressing the noise in the sky. Please, let me know what you think, same for @King of Hearts, Martin Falbisoner, and Daniel Case: Poc o² 16:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Poco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 17:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Cementerio judío, Tánger, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 33-35 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 20:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Old jewish cemetery, Tangier, close to the Mediterranean Sea, Morocco. The cemetery has about 3500 tombs and a surface of ca. 5 hectares (540,000 sq ft). All by me, Poc o² 20:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice texture on the grave markers, but I am just not feeling wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FP to me. What's the darker smudge in the sky toward the top a bit toward center from the left side? I don't suggest deleting it; I'd just like to know what it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Ikan, I am not 100% sure that I guess that it shouldn't be there. Will remove it tomorrow, thank for the hint. Poc o² 08:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan:

Done, sorry, didn't manage yesterday, I ran out of time Poc o² 18:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - historic significance; overall, it does garner one's attention. Atsme 📞 15:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light seems a bit harsh overall to me, and the composition feels a bit haphazard. Daphne Lantier 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image and good quality, however the mid day harsh light make the image very contrasted and the shadows of the trees on the right attract too much attention to make it an outstanding image. In summary : not at the right time of day. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 18:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències at night, May 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 13:48:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I'd steer clear of such a heavily "worked" picture but here I very much like what the limited yellow-blue color palette does, it just comes together. Support for the artistic merit. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's noisy but I like the atmosphere. -- Wolf im Wald 16:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KennyOMG and Wolf. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 02:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not as carefully handled or as high resolution/detailed as one of Codes, but still a fine image. -- Colin (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB is definitely wrong here, far too blueish Poc o² 09:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition but quality ins't very good--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great for 500px but the WB is just objectively wrong. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per King. Daphne Lantier 04:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB. --Code (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valle de Pineta - Portillo de Tella 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 19:51:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain

File:Закавказький богомол пара.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 15:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Viktor Yepishin - uploaded by Viktor Yepishin - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well captured, but distracting background with a large blown area. Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the insects have distracting foreground and background, but Cayambe, there's nothing "blown" about the overcast sky portion. -- Colin (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 18:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. No, the big white area isn't blown, but it is very distracting, and the insects' muted colors aren't helped in the slightest. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for voting. I withdraw my nomination. --Anntinomy (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beached fishing vessel, Nørre Vorupør, Denmark 2017-04-14 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2017 at 08:54:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info This is the same boat that Slaunger photographed (see his description at the FP nomination of the rudder/propeller photo) Note the protective rails and hull reinforcement, to enable this wooden boat to be dragged onto the beach. For this photo, I concentrated on the bold colours and patterns on this fishing boat while capturing its location on the beach, complete with dog. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me (maybe you'd like to straighten the horizon. It's a tiny bit tilted) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin done, thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 10:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilted --Mile (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette

- Mile tilt fixed. Mile, it is polite not to oppose for easily correctable and rather minor issues like this. If you compare other nominations elsewhere, people leave comments rather than votes for such. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are worried too much, simply minusinsg till corrected is better option, sicne i saw before, a shot wasnt corrected, because it had so many pluses, author didnt even care about...till i mentioned to voters issue. When they decline support, he undergone correcting... so, how should i know some will correct something. --Mile (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is you who are "worried too much": you could just trust other nominators and usually reasonable requests will be taken on board if offered with good faith and politeness. An oppose here says to me you don't trust me to fix it, which isn't COM:AGF. Is a <0.3° tilt really so horrendous that it means an image is not FP standard? Is a level horizon what makes this an FP? There is a phrase in English: "Don't sweat the small stuff". -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support a refreshing change to see such a clean hull. Wonder if they plan to launch that puppy from the beach? Atsme 📞 15:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought you were just calling the boat a "puppy" but then I took a closer look ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love that texture. Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 04:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I already said on Flickr. --Code (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel too biased to vote, but I think Colin has captured the texture and lines of the hull excellent here. I like the dog by the way - it adds a sense of scale. Just for information this vessel is also an element of this this FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition isn´t working for me. The thick hull is to dominant. I like to zoom out. Further more the dog spoils the shore-setting. --Milseburg (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport

File:Fünf Höfe - Sphere, Munich, April 2017 -03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2017 at 09:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info Something different now: Munich shopping mall Fünf Höfe - sphere by Olafur Eliasson once again. I really appreciate the abstract visual impact this (in reality pretty straightforward) sculpture evokes. The image would turn out rather grayscale were it not for the colorful reflections of different artificial light sources below. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as earlier. J e e 11:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Difficult decision but I think your earlier FP (File:Fünf Höfe - Sphere, Munich, April 2017 -02.jpg) and your b&w photo (File:Fünf Höfe - Sphere, Munich, April 2017 -01.jpg) are better. Although there is a bit of golden light on it, it isn't enough to make it very appealing colour-wise and you see quite a lot of green algae. The scale of the thing is hard to determine (compare this and this) without ground-level -- it could almost just be a large lamp shade close to the camera. Your other photos show better how space-filling this is. I wonder if your 01 image would benefit from an HDR multi-exposure. -- Colin (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, Colin. Well, as for 01, that image would be my absolute favorite of this series if it weren't for the sky. Even HDR wouldn't have helped that day, it was just boringly overcast. I'll try it again another time with blue sky. The gray sky, on the other side, did help a lot with my other images including this one, as it guaranteed a very even lighting. IMO you don't really need to determine the actual size of the sphere as this photo tries to underline its graphic qualities. And there's also windows in the background, serving as scale of sorts. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm not comparing this to any other photo; I just love looking at this rich abstract composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is a lot of CA in the lower portions. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

should be Fixed... what a job! But thanks for the hint, Daniel Case! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Viel besser. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Small pearl-bordered fritillary (Boloria selene).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2017 at 10:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do you used your twin-flash here? I think the use of lower ISO is very beneficial here. J e e 11:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took about ten photos under natural light at ISO400, then since I had the time I switched ISO100 and camera-mounted flash. The higher DoF worked really well this time, though as you know, it's not my usual technique. Charles (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not bad. --Mile (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm afraid I'm finding that right-hand greyish diagonal stem in the background to be rather distracting. -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't believe you shot the whole thing...perfectly in focus! Is there a harmless spray that causes temporary paralysis in fluttery flying critters that I'm not aware of?? Atsme 📞 14:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

$1.00 from Amazon if I remember. Charles (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per Colin, Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed butterflies), your image has a background quite disturbing compared to the others. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 06:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Pinging @Ikan Kekek, Christian Ferrer, and Daphne Lantier: , for opinion to see if you prefer this one. Charles (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, I would support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ping you all, but I have uploaded an alternate as some voters didn't like the first one. @Colin, Atsme, PetarM, Jkadavoor, Daniel Case, and Martin Falbisoner: . Charles (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Atsme 📞 23:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better background; but lack of wing scale details makes this an average photo for me. J e e 05:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jee, I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 20:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

The chosen alternative is: File:Small pearl-bordered fritillary (Boloria selene).jpg

File:2016.08.23.-08-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Weidenjungfer-Paar bei Eiablage.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2017 at 14:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Lestidae (Spread-winged damselflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Epiphytic oviposition" is restricted to a very few species; so very valuable. J e e 17:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality not perfect, but from what Jee says, this is a great capture. Charles (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vengolis (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 18:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 20:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Berlin Hufeisensiedlung UAV 04-2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2017 at 20:28:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 20:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Distorted near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think a new gallery is good for UAV (drone) photography. J e e 03:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea, well executed. Very high EV. --Code (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Silage windrows and two tractors 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2017 at 16:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info I only had my small camera with me when I saw this scene, so the quality might not be as high as it could be. There is nowhere to park on these narrow roads, so I had about 2-3 minutes to pull over, get my camera (no time for tripod despite the low evening light), click four pics and get the hell out of there since I was blocking the way to the barn for the tractors. It is very rude to get in the way of folks doing their job. Compo-wise this might be better, but I love the dual action of one tractor gunning for the barn (and me!), dust flying while the other is still trudging along. All by me, -- cart-Talk 16:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 16:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Great composition. The unsharpness doesn't look so bad at 5 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King of Hearts. PumpkinSky talk 01:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 01:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 04:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could do panorama mode, since two objects-where my eyes fell, are too much in border. So 2 shots, and wider panorama. And...and, if you would step on the roof, and remove forrest, that would be great. General after the battle --Mile (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the grass curving to take my eye to the left tractor. I wish the right one was more central, so the rest of the grass would lead my eye to it. The angle of the sun is highlighting the grass nicely. -- Colin (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin and King. I like that you call this "low evening light" ... yes, for me at that time of day this time of year 8:10 p.m. would be clearly golden hour and almost magic time as the sunset would be only 20 minutes away. But up in your latitudes you're looking at post-10 p.m. sunsets and then six hours of varying blueness without real darkness (not quite white nights I know ... more like "light gray nights"). Really, that looks like "very late afternoon light" to me . Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I have to oppose. The scenery is not that interesting or outstanding for me that it would compensate the sub-optimal technical quality. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting story but unsharp photo.--Ermell (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Red Sea Sunset BWP.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2017 at 16:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info An incredible sunset during a Red Sea dive trip near Hurghada, Egypt. The sun actually appeared to be an illuminated fireball, rough edges and all, which made the colors jump out at you. The effect it had on the horizon was amazing, so as soon as I cured my seasickness (which is why I was at the stern leaning over the rail), I grabbed my camera, and Voila! I should've taken a shot of the fish feeding frenzy, too. The reason for naming it the Red Sea was due to the effect of algae called Trichodesmium erythraeum which causes the sea to turn from its blue-green color to a reddish-brown. I still think the reflection of the sun plays a role in it. Created by, uploaded by, nominated by Atsme 📞 16:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atsme 📞 16:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just I love it. --Hockei (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but neither the motif nor the technical quality are up to FP starndards, methinks. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I respectfully invite all to search Google images using the phrase "close-up pictures of sun setting" and look at some of the high-end sunsets over water for comparison purposes. Atsme 📞 13:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I googled. My biggest gripe with it is the complete lack of visual information in the photo. Downsized to 2mp and it still looks like it's a thumbnail blown up. If I had to guess I'd say you relied on auto focus which did a poor job and focused closer than infinity, hence the oof picture, but what do I know. The gradients are nice but imho don't make a FP, most definitely not at this quality. Sorry. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose per Kenny. This is one of those sunsets that do look FP-worthy in that they stand out from other ones (OK, it does remind me of the old Comfort Inn logo). But there's too much unsharpness. I could forgive the edges of the sun, but not the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - ^{adding one thing here: the science 19:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)} one last plea and a few points for reviewers to please consider...the shot was taken in the middle of the sea on a boat - no tripod, the focal point and brightest light was the sun and sky around it, not the unlit choppy water which is very unlike taking a static shot on land using a tripod. The sun was a ball of fire and the edges in the picture reflect that surface. See this video which further confirms that the edges of the sun are actually not perfectly round like we see in so many tripod sunsets. In those shots, you also don't see a smooth variation of illumination as you do in this picture. I would very much appreciate a bit more consideration of the conditions, and will respect your decision if you decline, but it doesn't hurt to ask. If you can find an image of a sunset with the sun as close as it is in this shot that includes even a fraction of the tonal variations or smoothness in illumination of both sun & sky (excluding Hubble images) please share a link. Yes, the foreground was not in focus, the water was choppy so you have to rule out long exposure times or bracketed shots when shooting from a boat in the middle of the ocean. The setting sun was a fiery light that graduated from the bottom up, illuminated the sky with a bright orange glow that graduated into the darkness below, and created the beautiful transitional shades you see in this picture. Short of Hubble quality, the camera actually pushed the limits of technical quality under the circumstances and went the extra mile. Compare it with other hand-held, over the water shots and if you can find one with as much definition, illumination, and smoothness of transition in both the sun and sky, and still feel the picture is not FP quality, I will sadly withdraw the nom. Atsme 📞 16:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think my problem with it is that the sun is still quite small in the frame, is centred, and the horizontal aspect includes a lot of sea. The sea was probably more impressive for your 3D vision when you were there, than the 2D rendering here. I appreciate the sun has wobbly edges due to atmospheric effects, which are increased as it gets lower on the horizon. So that's not any technical error. I made an 8x10 crop that I find more pleasing (at 1819,0; 2511x3138) though there are other variations possible. It is a shame the sun isn't a little lower and there's so much grey below it compared to the colour above. Our best sunset photos include some foreground interest, such as something or some people (partly) silhouetted on the fire sky. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all for the feedback. Atsme 📞 23:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carisbrooke Castle gatehouse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 19:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#United_Kingdom
Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think I would probably like this photo better if you had backed up just a little and included the bottom of the approach path (I don't remember the technical name for it). However, I think on balance that this photo is good and picturesque enough to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Atsme 📞 01:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The dark shadow is a bit too distracting for me, though I acknowledge it is difficult to avoid. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadow doesn't bother me. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications

File:Hermagor Latschach Filialkirche hl Leonhard SSW-Ansicht 08062017 9158.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 03:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vengolis (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to remove that jet trail that looks like it connects to the steeple? It's really distracting. Daphne Lantier 04:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will start an attempt. Promised. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Daphne Lantier: Hopefully the result may convince. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. J e e 05:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support yess --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice angle and composition. I love that freshly-mowed lawn look. I would have made the WB a little warmer, but that's just a matter of personal preference. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Daniel Case: WB is a tad warmer now. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Please fix one very light dust spot at the upper right corner. I really love the streaming clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Ikan Kekek: Darn! Dust is like the Hydra monster: For every head chopped off, the Hydra would regrow a couple of heads. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 08:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I saw this at QIC about 10 minutes after User:Johann Jaritz nominated it there and went WOW. I immediately promoted it and suggested he put it up at FPC. I'm glad he did. I love the composition, vibrancy, and sharp focus. PumpkinSky talk 11:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice clouds and path leading up to the center of the frame. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Songluo Lake 20170611.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 12:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Peellden - uploaded by Peellden - nominated by Peellden -- Peellden (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peellden (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and the composition is not that exceptional, really. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lake reflections are all rather beautiful, but we can't feature all of them. If you're putting the horizon 1/3 from the top, what this picture is missing is a foreground (e.g. rocks, water lilies, etc.). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пелистер 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 08:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful clouds! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best picture of this mountain yet. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 21:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little too dark but great composition! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't convinced when looking at the thumbnail but at 100% it's really good. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Coins of the Italian Republic (500 Lire) silver (Caravels).png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2017 at 17:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info The coin was coined between 1958 and 1967. The feminine bust to the straight is of Renaissance style and the 19 coats of arms are those of the regional capital of the time (Genoa, Turin, Aosta,Milan, Trento, Venice, Trieste and Udine, Bologna, Florence , Ancona, Perugia, Rome, L'Aquila, Naples, Bari, Potenza, Catanzaro, Palermo, Cagliari). On the reverse side are shown the three caravels in the right navigation, around the "REPVBBLICA ITALIANA" below are the value. The proof of this coin, drawn in 1004 copies in 1957, has the banners on the back.

The coin was in circulation until 1967. After this date the coins were coined only for the collectors' bags that the mint sells annually All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 13:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and seven. --cart-Talk 21:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey...this is a Trademark File:LaughingOutLoad.gif --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Am I the only one who hesitates to support simply because the coin itself has sustained significant damage? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is because it is a course currency and not a collection coin. Thanks. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 01:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 01:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek, and nothing special. Sorry, I don't understand why this picture should be featured...--Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 20:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:M31 - Andromeda Galaxy by Kees Scherer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2017 at 14:15:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info Picture of the Andromeda Galaxy, created by Kees Scherer - uploaded by Harlock81 - nominated by Harlock81 -- Harlock81 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Harlock81 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look out! It's comin' right for us!. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too small, IMO. Compare File:Andromeda galaxy 2.jpg, for example. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wich real benefit has the bigger file of the example? --Neptuul (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More stardust :))--Neptuul (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too small. Daphne Lantier 06:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset on fish tail.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 13:40:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Prakat Shrestha - uploaded by Prakat Shrestha - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 13:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 13:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The similar image File:Mt. Macchapucchhere (31).JPG is better, mainly because of the DSLR vs compact camera. -- Colin (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a

Comment. Thanks but what about this image?--Biplab Anand (Talk) 16:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biplab Anand since FP is about selecting the "finest" then if there are similar better pictures, or that standard in that genre is generally higher, then it can't be FP. It is a good scene and lighting, let down mainly by technical weakness of the camera. -- Colin (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Colin. The other image is clearly better.--Peulle (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Biplab Anand (Talk) 05:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skopje (Скопје, Shkupi) - aqueduct.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 12:17:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
Info created by Pudelek - uploaded by Pudelek - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing anything that takes this above a QI. Hard sunlight. The eye is led along the aqueduct to some bushes, so not a satisfying composition. -- Colin (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 20:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose missing the FP pizzaz. Atsme 📞 21:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't disagree with the others, but that aqueduct is a really nice motif, so I'm wondering whether a different view of it in different lighting could be featurable. I think perhaps it could. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 10:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Ciudadela de Meybod, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 24-29 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 21:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Panoramic view of the Citadelle in Meybod also known as Narin Castle, Iran. The pre-islamic mud-brick castle was built over 2,000 years ago and stands 40 metres (130 ft) from its base and from the top of the citadelle enemies could be seen in a range of 70 kilometres (43 mi) in any direction. All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the image but there are some extreme stitching errors. Maybe a few single images are blurred? -- Wolf im Wald 00:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some blurry single images stitched = bad raw material. Very pity. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Wolf. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Agree, should be better. Poc o² 16:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 10:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset in the Debar's Lake.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 08:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by FatlindTomini - uploaded by FatlindTomini - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too bad the technical quality's just not sufficient, I'm afraid --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 10:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Могила на непобедените во Прилеп.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2017 at 12:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info created by Acolakoska - uploaded by Acolakoska - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose These are interesting sculptures and this view is excellent and eminently featurable. However too much of the image is unsharp. It seems the processor realized this and tried to make up for it, but it isn't working. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I find the light dull, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 10:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Going somewhere Ohrid.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 20:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
Info created by Geoff - uploaded by Raso mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't work for me either --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 10:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunch dish (pumpkin sauce, potatoes and chicken steak).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 15:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info Lunch dish (pumpkin sauce, potatoes and chicken steak). My shot. --Mile (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit too much blue in the white balance, it makes the dish look less tasty. It also seems you have two conflicting light sources in the photo, so not so easy to correct. Otherwise sharp and nice. --cart-Talk 19:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 01:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wouldn't have been able to isolate the details that cart lays out, but I agree that the picture should be improvable. Please ping me if you try an update. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB is too blue and too green. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, cart: i wasnt happy about that blue neither, so i change now. I think its much better. King of new spot. --Mile (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mile. I agree that the food looks much better; however, the side effect is that the plate has nearly disappeared. Would you consider just slightly increasing the contrast between the visible portions of the plate and the food? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek now is more visible, but count on it, while on white surface, to be less visible (dishes,cups etc). So you focus to food...food foto is a bit different than panoramas. --Mile (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm... Not convinced yet. Please see this example of how you can get the plate and the food equally visible on a white background. --cart-Talk 10:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've actually looked at a lot of food photographs and even took some of my own (nowhere near featurable quality). I was a sysop for a food discussion board at one time. The food looks good in this photo, and the plate is slightly more visible but still blends into the background at full size. I will live with it longer and see if I can come to a decision on whether to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will try next time. --Mile (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of thumb is: "You don't eat the food you photograph and you don't photograph the food you eat." --cart-Talk 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not convinced by the lighting. Somehow both the food and the plate look pale and grey in front of that much brighter background. By the way, something in that image makes my brain believe that the plate is angled in a way that should make the food slide off it towards the bottom left corner. I'm really puzzled, can anyone explain that? --El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hildesheim night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 12:19:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Germany
Info The reconstructed market square of Hildesheim (Germany) at night -- Xlayor (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A great scene, but it is not at FP level technically. The camera was not level so the building verticals are not straight (leaning). The top of the focal building is cropped off. The contrast is too much meaning the lit areas are blown out and the unlit areas too dark. Better processing might have helped, but generally such scenes benefit from an HDR approach. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the reasons stated by Colin above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 10:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turquoise Swirls in the Black Sea.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 09:03:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by NASA - nominated by Originalwana (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite! -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really stand out from our other satellite pictures for me. Might if it showed just the Black Sea. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for me, like Daniel Case. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, the swirls of phytoplankton look like brush strokes on an acrylic painting, and such a deep turquoise; not something one sees every day. Atsme 📞 01:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apparently the bloom here is one of the brightest since 2012, and attractive. While one could crop to closer just to the Black Sea, the curvature of the Earth gives some scale. -- Colin (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Citadel in Victoria.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 17:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by PeliCo - nominated by Xwejnusgozo -- Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best quality (other photos w/similar quality would be destroyed probably) but I like the composition a lot, and downsized to 4mp and sharoened a bit it looks good. -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really sharp, color looks a little strange, and regardless of those issues I'm just not wowed by the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KennyOMG. --Harlock81 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As Daniel said, not sharp enough for a panorama FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cámara de gas, nuevo crematorio, campo de concentración de Dachau, Alemania, 2016-03-05, DD 32-34 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 17:17:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Gas chamber of the Dachau concentration camp, Dachau, near Munich, Germany. It was the first of the Nazi concentration camps opened in Germany, intended to hold political prisoners. Its purpose was enlarged to include forced labor, and eventually, the imprisonment of Jews, German and Austrian criminals, and later foreign nationals from countries that Germany occupied or invaded. As U.S. Army troops neared the Dachau sub-camp at Landsberg on 27 April 1945, the SS officer in charge ordered that 4,000 prisoners be murdered. Windows and doors of their huts were nailed shut. The buildings were then doused with gasoline and set afire. Prisoners who were naked or nearly so were burned to death, while some managed to crawl out of the buildings before dying. There were 32,000 documented deaths at the camp, and thousands that are undocumented. All by me, Poc o² 17:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good documentation, and it's certainly chilling to be vicariously inside of a place where I could have been murdered had I been alive in Nazi Germany in the 40s. The parts that aren't brightly lit seem to me like they have some noise along with a fine grain; am I seeing correctly? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan Kekek, yes, you're right. I couldn't use a tripod. I took the picture sitting on that floor. I could apply more denoising, but not sure whether that would help. Poc o² 14:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really couldn't say. I'd have to see what it looked like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 18:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support an important image and well done! One has to keep in mind, though, that apparently the gas chamber in Dachau was not in use, as Dachau's function was different from the one of the "extermination camps" in the east. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Martin Falbisoner, surprising that the "selected" one were sent abroad, but fine, I am not really in the mood to make any further reasearch on that. It was creepy enough sitting in that room and imaging things...Poc o² 14:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do not forget about it --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - cold chills Atsme 📞 21:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of the biggest creep-out moments I've ever had was walking into this room, not knowing what it was until I squinted at the little plaque on the wall to find out (I'm sure they do that deliberately). Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm freezing in summer --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Foto grupal Iberoconf 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 12:36:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Ayelén Libertchuk - uploaded by Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 12:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support To be a grouphal photo of a conference, it´s very sharp, without noise (taked at ISO 3200) and the people is posing and very funny -- Ezarateesteban 12:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Laura Fiorucci (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It clearly passes technically which may carry a bit of WOW we got the shot, but is that enough to promote it as a FP? Atsme 📞 13:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, uuh, no. Sorry. I'm sure this picture will serve as a nice souvenir for everyone who participated - but its photographic merit is rather limited. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin Falbisoner. Low resolution, the image is for sure downsampled. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not really standing out from most other group photos. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice, but I don't see any "wow" factor. --Peulle (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roadside hawk (Rupornis magnirostris) immature 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 11:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info As with most birds, the young ones are less frightened of us. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. The surrounding greenery makes for a pretty busy scene, but while that would "kill" many other nominations it works to your advantage here. The brown twig on the left is a bit distracting to me as it has about the same color as the bird and is thus trying to draw my attention away from the subject a bit. I wish it wasn't there, but I can easily live with it. --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I could easily crop a bit off the left side, but I think that might cramp the bird too much. Charles (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Atsme 📞 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a big fan of the (noisy? overprocessed?) background - but the main subject is very well lit and detailed. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I'm not a big fan of noisy back- and or foregrounds too. On the contrary. Also the blurred leaves right below is disturbing me. I honour that it seems to be wildlife. So I would give a neutral if the noise would be strong visible reduced without worsening the bird. --Hockei (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the comments, I've uploaded a tighter crop with noise reduction. Hope you all prefer it @Hockei: . Charles (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you denoised it and I cannot see if you made it to reduce the colour noise enough. For me it looks like as if it is better (not perfect). The bird is sharper than the former version, good so. The crop looks better too. Also you increased the contrast so that the bright parts of the plumage looks overexposed now. The exposure (not the dark only the bright parts) has to be reduced again. --Hockei (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Unfortunately you obviously are not inclined to do that so I stay with a neutral. --Hockei (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would do but I am not at home so cannot re-process. Charles (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per El Grafo. This is one of those times where a potentially distracting background behind an animal works in the image's favor. Its colors do not clash, and it gives us some idea of the animal's natural habitat. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The bird is beautiful. I don't care too much about the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support. Excellent lighting, though the feathers in the middle are a bit less sharp than ideal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel I must oppose this one, for the reason given by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ - the plumage of the feathers just isn't rendered clearly enough for me. Nice shot, though.--Peulle (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Ypthima baldus-Kadavoor-2017-05-23-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 06:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Ypthima baldus, Common Fivering, is a species of Satyrinae butterfly found in Asia. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 06:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 06:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very pretty butterflies. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 10:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice composition, yet natural. --Harlock81 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost works as an abstraction, too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Stiftskirche -- 2017 -- 9969.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 17:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 20:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the crucifix, the filigree and the bilateral shadows of the crucifix. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PumpkinSky talk 22:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting doesn't wow me, and as for the composition, including just that much of the plants in the frame is a bit awkward for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. --Karelj (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

Image:Weapons Instructor Course.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 19:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by John Hughe - uploaded by TheAmerikaner - nominated by TheAmerikaner -- TheAmerikaner (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheAmerikaner (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support - I really like this shot but it needs a bit of clean-up. ~~Will likely support it when that's done.~~ On second thought, the little spots and smudges are probably on the dome itself. Would love to know how this shot was captured. Was there a camera on the wing? Atsme 📞 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What am I missing? The black silhouettes just sit there, and the sky is more or less equally inert. So the photo feels virtually flat to me, with almost nothing to move my eyes around. I'm tempted to oppose, but instead, I'd like to learn something from people who like this photo so much you'd like to feature it. Anyone who would like to teach me something about what's special about this photo could be doing me a good service. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever answers these questions, that's somewhat disheartening. My take on this is: find me another silhouette like this on commons. Or look on the internetz and see if you can find any that is better. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But better by what criteria, based on what? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's for you to figure out, but when you do, you know what you want to judge this picture based on and maybe have arrive to a different conclusion. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that it's more about what the image represents...such as humans flying above the clouds...being able to capture such an image and creating the look that was achieved. The value of such an image is undeniable and it's a relatively rare accomplishment. Atsme 📞 03:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand this. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This airplane was NOT airborne (flying) at the time. It was sitting on the ground. Note the description is "prepares his F-15 Eagle for a late day sortie". You prepare on the ground, not after take off. PumpkinSky talk 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Its nice silhuette. Burned pixel and some smudges could be cleaned, but i like colors very much here. --Mile (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The simplicity just does it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport

File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Dülmener Wildpferde in der Wildbahn -- 2016 -- 4740.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2017 at 04:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvelous. --Code (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but the glare from the sun and the overblown sky doesn't work for me – it overwhelms the picture. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expected this kind of oppose vote when I first saw the nomination and I find it really ridiculous. What do you expect the sky to look like when photgraphing towards the bright sun? That's obviously a necessary part of the - clearly excellent - composition here. FPC is getting more and more frustrating especially for those users contributing excellent and artistic photgraphy. --Code (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about not calling people's opposes "ridiculous" when you yourself make ridiculous opposes as well? :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KennyOMG, you are entitled to not like the composition/effect, but it clearly is not just a picture of horses but also of the sunlight through the trees and the sunlit morning fog. So that can't really "overwhelm the picture" any more than someone's head can overwhelm a portrait. That's what Code is saying is "ridiculous". Perhaps this is just a case of a badly worded review? -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be ridiculous or even invalid? It's not more ridiculous/invalid than some opposes I got recently. But I think name calling leads to nowhere, maybe I'm wrong. -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KennyOMG: Feel free to call my oppose votes "ridiculous" whenever you think it's appropriate. --Code (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we're drifting away from one of the primary purposes of promoting images to FP, which is actually not how great the technical quality is for a mundane scene, or how well the image fits into a cookie cutter pattern we have grown accustomed to seeing. 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. I've seen the baby get thrown out with the bath water for all the wrong reasons, including images that Adobe accepted under their very stringent technical requirements for their stock library. I can understand that we're not all going to like the same images which is a matter of taste, but scenes that surpass cookie cutter aesthetics and are different from the norm, such as being shot in locations where few ever go...scenes that few ever see...those are the things that occassionally get overlooked:

• Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
• almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
• night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
• beautiful does not always mean valuable.

Just my two cents worth. Atsme 📞 13:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Because of the colors and the grandeur of the scene, this photo surpasses File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg which is used as a marker for User PH-4, IMO. --cart-Talk 08:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, but wonder if the transition about halfway down the frame, from glare to clarity, is natural or the result of a filter (e.g dehaze). If so, I wonder if it could be made to transition more gradually and/or less strongly. If it is a linear gradient filter, then perhaps an round/oval one would be more appropriate wrt the sun rays. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, a linear gradient filter to brighten the horses. But you're right, it's too strong. I just improved the use of the filter. But there is no filter around the sun. --XRay ^talk 10:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear gradient filter to brighten the horses". I see that since my comment, you have uploaded a new version with lighter horses. That's fine, but what I was talking about was the line across the trees that makes those below have more contrast (deeper dark). It looks like the contrast is much stronger in the lower half and less glare. I didn't mean the filter was around the sun, but you know how a filter can be inverted, so it is either like a soft hole rather than soft disc, this is what I mean by applying the filter in an oval shape, rather than a straight light. If you could say what adjustments your filter made, then perhaps I could make a more clued-up suggestion. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The filter brighten especially the lower part. Additional there is a little bit more contrast. But the darker part of the trees itself is natural. I've checked this with removing the filter. The values are exposure +0.51, contrast +6, deep lights +35, clarity +12, saturation +10. --XRay ^talk 12:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose glare is too strong --Mile (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (3rd version) until filter transition is fixed. Needs much more (ie half the image) to transition. Or, actually, might work with no filter at all and brightness halfway between the top and bottom parts. Neutral -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which filter transition? The dark part is natural. But I'll check the image is still good enough without filter. --XRay ^talk 12:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @KennyOMG, PetarM, Colin, and Bruce1ee: (and all others): The filter makes trouble. So I removed the filter. Now you can see there is a line which looks like a filter, but there isn't a filter. Sometimes there are things that you would not think possible. --XRay ^talk 12:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: The filter wasn't the reason for my oppose above, and it wasn't for the technical quality of the picture either. It's simply that, as stated above, it just doesn't work for me. For me the horses are the subject of the picture, which, in my opinion, the glare spoils; if they weren't there I'd view the picture more favorably. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Neutral, still don't like that difference in light but if it's natural then... -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the sun is bright but I love the effect it makes in this particular case. PumpkinSky talk 11:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The level of difficulty when shooting into the sun is quite high. This image is not the same ole aesthetically pleasing sunset - this image has character. The ponies moving through the area enhance the scene that much more - it is not something we see everyday, and to me that adds to its value. Atsme 📞 11:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PetarM. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Viborg cathedral ceiling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 21:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The frescos on Viborg cathedral ceiling are by Joakim Skovgaard. Photo all by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is very NICE! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 22:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. PumpkinSky talk 23:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 05:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question A citat from our user on Commons: Much as I love my fisheye, I don't think this scene benefits and the curved wall is troublesome. Also the crop just looks like "this is as much as I could fit" rather than a careful arrangement -- the left side is chopped off. And although a small part of the ceiling fresco is now visible, it remains very poor quality. I recommend trying a panorama + HDR like Diliff used here to get the wide staircase but with regular verticals. Also the ceiling fresco appears to be a dome so may be better shot from below, looking up. A landscape-orientation would achieve the width with a standard lens like this photo. I am wondering, did that user change his mind ? --Mile (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quote refers to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rococo staircase (Gruber Mansion, Slovenia).jpg, an image where the walls are curved and only a tiny portion of a ceiling fresco is visible. Other people had managed to capture that scene using standard rectilinear lens. A similar staircase scene was shot by me File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Stairs.jpg where having straight lines was absoutely vital. So I know what lens to use when.

With the above cathedral ceiling, I did apply my advice "the ceiling fresco appears to be a dome so may be better shot from below, looking up" -- that's exactly what this is. The framing here captures not only the complete ceiling above, but the ceilings on all four sides too. In the portion of the cathedral to the left (chancel/choir), all three wall frescos are captured. The frescos on the far transcept walls are not captured at all, and that would have required another photo perpendicular to this one, which sadly I did not make. In terms of distortion, the walls do arch to meet the ceiling as we see here. This lens features a Panini projection where lines radiating from the perspective "vanishing point" are straight, which means the pillars on all four sides of the crossing are straight lines. The straight lines in the nave display some curvature but not imo to a distracting degree. A rectilinear projection would not have captured the frescos on all ceilings or those on the walls to the left. I think this is a successful use of a fisheye both in terms of framing and minimising any troublesome distortion. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the candelabrum doesn't really help the composition. But I guess there was nothing you could do without getting in trouble... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and, Martin, it isn't just sitting on a table, but see File:Seven-branched church candelabra, Viborg cathedral.jpg -- it is a huge floor standing ornament. -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 20:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not a fan of the distortion on the sides. Not a reason sufficient for opposing, given the great quality, but... Yann (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Question Is this free of rights ? I'm not sure...--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- It is free.--Jebulon (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Altenburg-310053-PSD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 05:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Altenburg-Rothof Protected Area in Bamberg

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this tree by itself might be featurable, and the hill in the background with fall colors is arguably borderline featurable, too. The combination makes this photo special to me. My one hesitation about this photo is the color of the sky. Ermell might say something about that, or you could read the exchange at COM:Photography critiques#File:Altenburg-310053-PSD.jpg. But regardless, the level of artistry in this photo is sufficient for me to feel wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work in my eyes. --Hockei (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 11:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp! A very good work according to me. --Harlock81 (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - speaks volumes in its simplicity. Atsme 📞 18:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look at the notation --Neptuul (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That looks like a tiny dust spot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Removed--Ermell (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Neptuul (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully stark. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 09:13:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Maldives
Info Thudufushi, a vacation resort in the Ari Atoll, Maldives. I really like the creamy sky and the clouds. Although clouds often tend to be a really bad sign down there... . All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. PumpkinSky talk 11:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good case when center is OK. --Mile (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I wanna be THERE!! Atsme 📞 18:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 20:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JahlilMA (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Atsme. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the sky --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really so empty of people there? Anyway a great composition. --A.Savin 12:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Easily the best of this series. Sharpened just as much as it needs to be. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support: please have mercy on us! :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Purana-Kadavoor-2017-06-03-002.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 14:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods
Info Purana tigrina, male. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 14:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- When I took the photo of the emergence, experts asked for a dorsal view for accurate identification. So I wander around and took dorsal and ventral views of both male and female. These help them as the marks are well matching with Walker's illustration on 1850 and the specimens stored in the museum. J e e 14:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 18:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 20:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- SonOfMountain (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Thanks SonOfMountain; but Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. J e e 02:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very convincing. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but the flash reflection is a bit strong... Yann (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The cluster of silver colored dots are a distingusing property of this cicada. J e e 05:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yuuup! --Peulle (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 04:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Cicadidae_.28Cicadas.29

File:Valašské muzeum v přírodě - Valašská dědina 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2017 at 13:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 17:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the contrast between the strict angles of the building and the fractal chaos of the woods around them, further complicated by the unpainted (OK, though, it is deeply stained). Sort of like this old picture I took. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is only moderately sharp for a 8 MP image, so it has to be perfect in every other way for me to support. The logs in the middle are overexposed, and there may be just a little too much grass competing for attention. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per KoH Llez (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Chase khar - چاسه خار (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 00:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Choramcity1 - uploaded by Choramcity1 - nominated by SonOfMountain -- SonOfMountain (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SonOfMountain (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring sky and unsharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. The motif doesn't seem outstanding, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. --Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be an FP but not in this fog, per King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aussicht Kleiner Gleichberg Süd.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 10:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View from the stone run on the summit of Kleiner Gleichberg southward. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neptuul (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not jaded at what an achievement this is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Half the image is of rubble, with the piles on the left and right dominating the image. 2000px vertical is not very high resolution for a panorama and this image suffers from lack of detail in the distant hill and trees are just green smudges. There's not enough sky. When one looks out at a landscape from a high viewpoint, one sees a lot of sky, so the vertical crop here is unnatural. I like the sunlight/rain on the right side of the distance, though the effect isn't strong. The left distance is just dark and gloomy and little detail. A central crop concentrating on the hill would be a better image, though far too low resolution for FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again I think you're not right, Colin. A large resolution doesn't make a FP. Sky can be seen everywhere. It´s not necessary to blow up this image with content not characteristic for this location. I also diasgree with your proposed cut. The "rubble" (en:stone run) is characteristic for this mountain. It would be totaly wrong, to exclude right this. Especially regarding the use in any wiki-projekt. --Milseburg (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While a large resolution doesn't make an FP, a low resolution most certainly does diminish it's chances. Given that 2Mp was the short dimension when cameras were 6MP, and was the long dimension when cameras didn't even reach 2MP, there is little excuse for a modern panorama being so short height-wise. Stick your camera in portrait orientation and get a larger height. This is about our finest work, and yet you keep nominating images that have no composition qualities that IMO put them among our finest works. Simply rotating the camera around the tripod head on a high viewpoint in Germany is not sufficient to make an FP. Where's the "great light", where's the "great composition", where's the "superb detail". There isn't anything here that makes me think this is close to FP I'm afraid. I'm quite familiar with mountains and very typically the rough ground / stones at one's feet is not photogenic, and isn't generally part of the view one wants to include to a great degree. It's all about deciding what to include and frame in your picture, and these panorama just seem to lack any compositional/framing decision-making at all. Have a look at the FP category. There are images there that pop off the screen and make you go wow. That's FP. Not this I'm afraid. This is just a view. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, we keep having different opinions and preferences. In Germany a lot of summits are able to impress by itself. Obviously I'm more excited about this motifs than you. --Milseburg (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support pace Colin - but the image works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support after reading Colin and Milseburg's exchange. The technical shortcomings are not as bad as some other images, and having hiked amid similar stone runs I totally understand that it's the real subject of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Gurk Domplatz 1 Torturm Innenseite Stoeckl Loggia mit Saeulenaufgang 13062017 9423.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 05:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good choice of angle on the house, but I'm afraid it's not enough to make it striking enough for FP for me. And that grayish-blue sky tone just does not work for me either (Was there some extra processing done on it? There is a faint sort of lighter halo around the tree, perhaps the relic of what it was before). A shame because the detail and lighting was handled so well ... definitely a QI. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Daniel Case: Apparently I exaggerated the processing. I set tone and color rendition back to the original values. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. It looks so much better. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will support once you remove the dust spots - there are two light ones a bit to the left of the right margin near the top and there's also a really small one above the right side of the cloud. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Ikan Kekek: Dust never sleeps. Thanks for detecting those "beasts". --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - You're welcome. I think I still see a tiny spot above the right side of the cloud in the upper center of the picture and possibly one more tiny one near the top margin some ways to the right of that, but don't kill yourself fighting ghosts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Ikan Kekek: Almost felt like a ghostbuster. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who ya gonna call? :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Peter Venkman most supposedly. And if not available, Dr. Egon Spengler. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of the vertical shadows cast by the midday lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7....i don't know what's the king's problem of the shadows.....--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Museo de la Catedral de Quito, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 94-96 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 08:25:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info View of the Archiepiscopal library, located in the museum inside the Metropolitan Cathedral of Quito, located in the Historic Center of Quito, capital of Ecuador. The construction of the catholic temple began in 1562 and it was consecrated 10 years later. The collection of the library includes hundreds of works of theology and liturgy some of them from the 16th century and most from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. All by me, Poc o² 08:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, great composition, despite the table (?) at the right. --A.Savin 13:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin, that's not a table but the same surface you can see (or guess) also in the pictures. Again, no tripods where welcome and the lighting was not the best, so I had to look for a spot to put the camera. Poc o² 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 16:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wouldn't have realized the photo was taken without a tripod. It looks about as good as possible to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 16:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Praha Spanish Synagogue Interior 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 06:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Czech Republic
Info Torah ark and Bema at the Spanish Synagogue (in Czech Španělská synagoga) in the Old Town of Prague, Czech Republic. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 16:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice tones, and overall very well-handled lighting. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Atsme 📞 16:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support My sugestion is do this shoot again with tripod and low ISO, however, very beautiful church interior --The Photographer 11:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Czech Republic

File:Alterskap Kvæfjord kirke 1520 (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 19:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, bad flash reflection. Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. -- KTC (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. Also looks like it could be rotated to straighten a bit. Atsme 📞 15:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others. Daphne Lantier 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the reviews, people, they're helpful in understanding what is needed for FP shots. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:HVB-Tower and Mae West, Munich, June 2017 -02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 13:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
Info As the setting sun dips Munich's HVB-Tower into a dramatic, fiery light, commuters rush home stoically, passing "Mae West", a rather controversial sculpture on Effnerplatz. All by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop at the car light trail on the left side is a bit tight. Otherwise a wonderful photo. --Hockei (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, Hockei --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good now. --Hockei (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 16:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a fine photo, and I'm likely to support it, but I'd like to know why the trees on the right and left sides are so unsharp. Is it because of motion blur, due to the 13-second exposure? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, exactly. The trees in the middle are unsharp as well but the ones to the left and right are much nearer, so the motion blur is way more visible... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Atsme 📞 16:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany

File:New York 1911.webm, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 15:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info created by Svenska Biografteatern, restored by the Museum of Modern Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Music removed, as it is under a copyright. Yann (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historical document, very good restoration. -- Yann (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 16:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weeeell I have maaaany concerns with this, starting with the poor lighting, the spots flickering across the screen ... nah, I'm just kidding, no doubt a Support vote from me. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great document! But did the musical score credited at the end play for you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not for me either, so I just started singing "New York, New York" over it. Somehow that sort of works.

It would be fun to try with "Empire State of Mind", too. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made a version without the copyright mention at the end for the music, but I can't rename it over this one now (phab:T168374). Yann (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity, because the music credit is confusing and really should be excised for versions without music. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a temporary glitch. I will move it as soon as it is fixed. Yann (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - love the history! Atsme 📞 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing to see some familiar sights in there ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I recognized quite a lot: Many of these buildings are still standing. Pity about that one wonderful low-rise building, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 08:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in some scenes you see the price for this extreme denoising: dark shadows around black silhouettes - but overall a phantastic restauration. --PtrQs (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Kla road1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 04:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info The road passes the last settlement, Khardung village (right), before snaking up the mountains to the "world's highest motorable pass" Khardung La. (It is actually the world's 4th-5th highest such pass.) This road is of strategic importance to the Indian army for supplying troops at the Siachen Glacier and is motorable year around since 1976, thanks to the Border Roads Organization's efforts. Khardung itself is situated at 4000m; the snowy peaks rise ~2900m above the village. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very well-done generally, but dark areas up front are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question No exif data? --Hockei (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5D mk1, 35mm, f/8, 1/1250, Iso 200. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'd like to see the original exifs in the image you removed.

--Hockei (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter? -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 07:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The village nestled in the foothills, the snowcapped peaks, the contrasting shadows, +tech quality - I like! Atsme 📞 19:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ladakh! J e e 03:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - I've lived with this photo for a while, and I've decided that a combination of the really interesting landforms and the general sharpness of the photo (though not quite as much on the village in the background) with the importance of the terrain being depicted merits this photo being featured. And I kind of like the shadows in the foreground. They and the rather small amount (but just enough) of sky are a nice change as they are well shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan, I totally agree with you about the shadows: the one on the left, in the foreground, helps me to focus on the village and the peaks in the background and the shadows on the right make the otherwise barren brown rocks a bit more interesting to look at. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Gåseberg Sheep Farm.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 22:19:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info I pass this farm almost every day and most of the time it is just an ordinary little sheep farm, but this day the clouds, light and field in front of it made it special. All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the sharpness is too low, the sky too noisy and the sight is common for me. No wow. --Hockei (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmmm, still not sure about it... Nice colours and atmosphere, though. Where are the sheep? ;-) BTW, could you remove the spot (bird, insect) in the sky? --Basotxerri (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ufo zapped! Thanks for noticing, thought I had got all of them. The sheep are in the smaller fields behind the farm and forest, the farmer rotates the crops and sheep. I'm not sure this field will be used for grazing this year. Btw, this is the same field earlier this year. --cart-Talk 14:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works more as an abstraction, especially with the off-balance clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Per Hockei--Ermell (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments. Always appreciated. --cart-Talk 17:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheveche d'Athèna Ichkeul.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 15:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by User:El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - begs to show us what they're doing. Atsme 📞 15:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Atsme. Daphne Lantier 16:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I like to imagine that they're having a nice passionate kiss, there is far too much dead space for a photo that shows no faces. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiang-Mai Thailand Buddhist-Manuscript-Library-and-Museum-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 20:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Buddhist Manuscript Library and Museum in Chiang Mai, Thailand

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The clouds seem oddly dull and the EXIF confirms the Lightroom Whites are -66 which is really quite extreme adjustment. Mostly I find Highlights does a better job than lowering Whites. It seems wrong to have "white" clouds so dark. -- Colin (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I reverted to the previous version. I wanted it to have it quite bright so that the wooden structure is visible in a print. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I really like this. PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - perfect framing, great shot!! Atsme 📞 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ A good motiv, but there are severe CAs, especially along the stems of the two palms on the left side, along the left side of the whitish portal and on both sides of the litte "tower" in between --Llez (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I would not rate this as severe, but indeed, a slight adjustment of the defringe parameters resolved the issue. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better now --Llez (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Ciconia ciconia - Heidelberg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 17:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird is smaller than I'd normally like but the angle of the camera on the bird, nest, and branches makes up for it. PumpkinSky talk 19:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 21:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an environmental portrait of its nest. J e e 05:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Parboiled rice with chicken, peppers, cucurbita, peas and tomato.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 20:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info Parboiled rice with chicken, peppers, cucurbita, peas and tomato. My shot. --Mile (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - your pictures make me verrry hungry. Atsme 📞 21:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink#Food

File:Queichwiese.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 18:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Kontraproduktivität - uploaded by Kontraproduktivität - nominated by Kontraproduktivität -- Kontraproduktivität (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kontraproduktivität (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really want to support this but have a few issues. 1) the sky is completely blown on the right side, any chance to recover? 2. The trees have a nasty aura above them (too much clarity? or other local contrast adjustments?), should be done without. 3. Dust spots need to go. (4? It feels, and based on the church roofs on the left side it also seems, it has a mild tilt to the right, but might be wrong about this.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice golden-hour tones but the landscape alas just isn't special for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Half Dome with Eastern Yosemite Valley.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 21:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 21:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Holy smokes! -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per Kenny PumpkinSky talk 00:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - is that the moon or Mars? 😆 Wow. Atsme 📞 03:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me a little bit of this one. --Code (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kenny --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive in detail. No problems with the close range. Since it is obviously a stitched work you should use the corresponding template. --Milseburg (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Template added. Thanks for your advice! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail. -- Colin (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image is ENORMOUS. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also the mountain Basotxerri --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as if this already doesn't have enough. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail.--Peulle (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good compo and what details! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 14:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#California

File:Jupiter’s Clouds of Many Colors.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 07:38:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Gerald Eichstädt /Seán Doran uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot but I don't like the tight composition on the left side. -- Wolf im Wald 13:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Wolf. Daphne Lantier 20:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Ikan - full shot is pretty amazing. Atsme 📞 21:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is awful. --Hockei (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Hockei. There's no reason for the dead space (ahem) on the top and bottom. Just because so many smartphone photos are necessarily framed this way, it doesn't mean photos by space probes, many of which were launched long before smartphones, have to look like that too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd support if the top and bottom were cropped tighter.--Peulle (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 14:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Knez Miloš Obrenović.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 11:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Miloš Obrenović, Prince of Serbia. My photo. --Mile (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 16:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - The image looks a little unsharp in and near the elbows. Is that true in the painting? How big is the painting? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is normal at paintings, or not. Borders are embeded in wodden panel. See brooch in the middle (borders of hat of that man), seems like "unsharp", then see some dots, lines of mosque, seems sharp. What "resolution-dpi" can you achieve with brush ? Measure, and number i couldt find on museum site. Its around 80-90cm × 50-60 cm. Check sharpness to move some cm up, on start of column. --Mile (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 14:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Arch of Constantine at Night (Rome).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 18:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
Info The Arch of Constantine (Italian: Arco di Costantino) is a triumphal arch in Rome, situated between the Colosseum and the Palatine Hill. It was erected by the Roman Senate to commemorate Constantine I's victory over Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. Dedicated in 315, it is the largest Roman triumphal arch. The arch spans the Via triumphalis, the way taken by the emperors when they entered the city in triumph. All by -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Atsme 📞 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First I wanted to support this nomination, but after looking closer at it I'm not really convinced any more. When looking at the fence you can see that the whole picture is leaning backwards (and/or to the right) a little bit. The fence should be rectilinear. Also, there is a part at the right side missing which spoils the symmetry. Another thing is that I can see a strange halo (looks like banding) around the arch when looking at it at 100% size although I have to admit that I'm not sure whether it's a problem with my display. Maybe someone with a calibrated display can have a closer look at it? Generally I would prefer a blue hour shot. The darkness of the night makes the trees merge with the sky. They would contrast better if the sky was a little bit brighter. Then we have the usual problem that the file description is not sufficient and a geotag is missing. --Code (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code -- Wolf im Wald 00:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Atsme. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I love this arch, but the strong white light and particularly the shadows are unfortunately very distracting to me. I realize that there may be no way to avoid these shadows in a night photo, which could mean that I don't think an FP night photo of this arch is possible, though of course I take everything case by case. But I think the main point is to get a great photo of the arch in which all of one side is optimally visible, and that probably requires more even light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I suggest trying from this angle which will make the fence less dominant and is a better angle for showing the 3D form. I agree that blue hour is better, though Ikan may be right that the artificial lighting isn't great and you are stuck with it. We're not seeing much detail of the artwork on the arch, and our FPs often do show more detail than this. So a stitched image may be the way for you to get more detail from your camera. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garaio - Puente de Azúa 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 20:33:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 21:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The straight shadows help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Livio. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice enough composition, though quite a common one for a bridge. The vanishing point isn't even close to being centred, which is quite important for this kind of composition. So I don't think this reaches the FP bar. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Colin, thank you for your comment. In fact, I see that there is potential for improvement. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Colin. I trust, however, that the irregularity of the railing lines is as is and not an effect of the photography? Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, the lack of symmetry is distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Half Dome from near Glacier Point.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 18:57:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spectacular like the other one but is there a need for 2 almost identical FPs? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see them as almost identical. There are significant composition differences IMHO. Even if there weren't, I'd still support. PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info Hello Kenny, this image was taken in 2016, the other one in 2015 during another trip. Moreover the images were taken from two different locations (see geodata) and I think they show different aspects (flora in the foreground vs. view into the valley). Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Not much below the exact same discussion was going on about two bird pictures and what constitutes "different enough". -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I've read the discussion, but between these bird images was a time difference of only a few minutes and the subject was the same (excluding the birds head pose). The Yosemite images show different perspectives and they have a time difference of about 11 months. Therefore the sky is very different becaus they were not taken at the same day. Besides the camera locations are about 500 meters apart (see geodata). So I don't think, that the situation is comparable with the bird. Regards -- Wolf im Wald 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Support People have spoketh. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When I was comparing the two pictures, I felt the other one had a better composition, but this is such a big, sharp (with the exception of the near right corner) photo, with so many wonderful details that it deserves the star, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a different viewpoint and composition with the foreground trees. Great resolution. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but probably I would play a bit with exposure and WB - maybe this is not optimal yet. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyhow per Uoaei1. --Hockei (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Feels like I could walk right into it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll bite on both these versions since they are so well done. Can't help but thinking that the Half Dome looks like a hooded version of the Grim Reaper looking out over his realm. --cart-Talk 10:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Colin. --Code (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#California

File:Pink anemonefish BWP.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Fish
Info Pink anemonefish (Amphiprion perideraion) shot underwater (Pacific) at dark thirty, approx. 40 ft. deep with noticeable current/surge as indicated by the anemone. Location was Manta Ray Bay, Federated States of Micronesia where the giant mantas fly in for cleaning. All by -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 16:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good shot, if there would be higher pixelage i would crop to enfocus the fish. --Mile (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice fish expresion and hight EV --The Photographer 17:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, based on your superb track record of ocean pics, I assume this is real color, including the blue parts of the anemone tentacles (though is there posterization?), and I will Support like everyone else. I think the most logical place for the annotation in the file would be where the fish is; do you agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All natural color, Ikan, and thank you for the kind words. The tips are iridescent so it's not surprising that with the refraction of light in the water and bounced light of the flash against the anemone tips, glints of different shades and colors would reflect off the tips. I do know the anemone will glow where the host fish touch it. I did clean up bits & pieces of backscatter in the background which is customary practice with u/w images. I also wouldn't doubt that when an anemone feels threatened, or it's host fish is fluttering about nervously that the reaction may cause some color changes but I'd have to do more research to be for certain. ~~Apologies, but I'm not quite sure about your annotation reference?~~^{Forgot I added the annotation, and yes, I agree so I changed it.19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)} I encourage you to do whatever you feel is necessary. Atsme 📞 18:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a few small but ok --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tiny amount of motion blur on the anemones doesn't detract from the fact that this is a stellar FP. Outstanding work. --Peulle (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finding Atsme! :) It looks almost like a painting. --cart-Talk 10:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support super. Charles (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish

File:Río Ibar, Ribarice, Serbia, 2014-04-15, DD 02.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 05:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a great photo, and I'd like to argue preemptively against any suggestion of cropping or retouching the photo so as to eliminate the garbage from the near left corner. I think it serves as both a contrast to the beautiful natural scene and a visual lesson to people to stop littering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Daphne Lantier 06:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Ikan! Poc o² 08:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not seeing what is special here. Perhaps I am used to damp weather in Scotland. Bare trees, and not especially sharp image, with the lighting so diffused there is little contrast. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To me, the mist is a feature, not a bug, but I also really like the the form, with its topography. But it's inescapable that scenes that are usual for any of us tend not to produce a feeling of wow, so I understand your reaction completely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The earthtones are lovely. Imagine traveling the road on the left. I've actually had similar adventures in the Andes, and several busses now have new button holes in the seats where this gal sat. Atsme 📞 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calming and subtle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. I don't find the composition striking, it seems almost random, and the litter at the left front is distracting and discordant. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Colin. --Milseburg (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel, "random" is the first (and only) word that pops in my head. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion about votes, nom, etc

I don't find this kind of comments (towards nominator, author or supporters) particularly respectful Poc o² 15:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, I think you've been here long enough to not expect oppose votes to be sugar coated. Clearly some people, myself included, aren't "getting it". While I can see that you are looking up the winding river valley, so that's why you pointed the camera this way, the elements of the composition aren't quite fitting. There isn't really a focal point for the eye, hence perhaps the "random" comments. It isn't to my mind going beyond the snap any tourist might quickly take at a lay-by. Ikan's litter justification is really stretching photographic review excuses -- one could say that sort of thing about any view spoiled in some way. Considering the continuous stream of nominations from you, Poco, the fact that this image is three years old tells me it isn't really one you regard as among your finest. You take great photos, so I don't know why Ikan has to scrape the barrel here. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I obviously don't agree with you that I'm "scraping the barrel". Nor do I agree in the slightest that there's anything "random" about the form. It's good for you to give a clear analysis of your opinion, but going further and assuming that others (7 people so far) couldn't possibly have a different, thought-through reaction, which is the way I (mis-?)read your comment above, is not reasonable. As for the garbage, if you don't like the idea of it as an object lesson, my response would be simply that it's there and it's part of what I consider a great composition. I don't go by the original ancient Roman ideal of landscapes as an idealized version of countryside views for the exclusive use of people who live in cities, too far away from the countryside to view it from their homes or properties. We're well beyond that time now, having gone through a series of Modernist periods. As you know, I tend to judge photographic compositions to a large degree as I judge paintings: I move my eyes around the picture frame to experience a linear arabesque. In this case, I also enjoy the contours of the topography, yes, the trees, the mist - all of it. It doesn't speak to you. As we say in the U.S., that's what makes horse racing (maybe you have the same expression in Scotland). I saw this photo relatively recently at QIC, and Poco has a very long backlog of photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP, so I doubt that your deduction about the implications of the photo being 3 years old really holds water, but of course Poco can address that himself if he so chooses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan only five people, other that yourself and Poco, supported it and four oppose. That's a pretty dreadful ratio for FPC. Considering Pocos good photos tend to get 10 solid support within hours, this is certainly and without any question "scraping the barrel" when it comes to Poco nominations. If this is really the best that you can come up with, of all the images by Commons FPC regulars, and by others we are less familiar with, then I rather despair for the project. I think you misunderstand Poco's list of potential FPs. It isn't, as I understand it, "photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP", but ones he's at some point in time when he uploaded them, considered might be worth a punt some day. Having sat on this one for three years, it certainly and without any question, isn't one of the ones that jump out at him and say "pick me pick me" every time he looks at it. It's all very nice for Poco to get a free extra vote when you nominate from his backlog. The rest of FPC crowd, who mostly nominate their own works, have to make do with earning six other supports rather than five. It isn't as though there's a shortage of great images on Commons that haven't been nominated yet. I don't, for the record, assume others "couldn't possibly have a different, thought-through reaction", that's why I wrote "some people..aren't getting it", rather than "anyone with eyes in their head can obviously see that...". FP is about picking the finest, not just working through some list of images Poco has likely seen and passed on many times already.

Ikan, I rather suspect you could pick the "random file" link on the left side of Commons, and make an argument about how you really like the image, how you love to move your eyes about it while experiencing a linear arabesque, and that the glaring defects serve as as some kind of lesson to society. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will keep it short. First, the fact (and that is one) that oppose votes are not sugar coated is fine to me. Being rude or disrespectful to nominators, author, etc. is different and having been like this for a while doesn't mean that it is fine and we should keep on doing it. My opinion.

Ikan didn't get this image from my "FP candidates by User:Poco a poco" category (as it isn't included there), but, as he said, saw it recently in QI. I guess that the story is straightforward: he saw it, he liked it, he nominated it. Period. I do have a big backlog of images where I see some potential to FP (the cat mentioned earlier), some of them I take back later, some I propose, I do not definitely believe that everything in that cat should become FP. I recently nominated a picture from Machu Picchu, 2 years old, 20 votes, all supports and a picture from Cambodia, 4 years old, 12 votes, all supports. Therefore I don't necessarily see a link between the age of the nominated pictures and the likelihood to become FP, the barrel is probably still half full...Poc o² 22:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoaaaa, my apologies! Didn't want to start a firestorm but yes, I think the scene depicted is pretty random (in the most non-offensive way possible), especially in in light of your other work that pops up on FPC. I disagree about the extra vote argument, 95% of your pics don't need it and the rest don't pass even with - save for the odd exception every once in a blue moon. And I hope the barrel is more than half full and glad to see you didn't stop uploading after the "Arabic-incident". :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I'm not an "extra vote" just because I chose to nominate a photo, and it strikes me as really disrespectful for you to imply that I pick photos completely randomly and don't have any standards (your "random file" stuff, which to me is really nasty crap, my friend). You should instead have enough respect to view my standards as different from yours even if you violently disagree with them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I didn't say you picked photos at random. I don't suggest you have no standards. What I am suggesting is that you are perfectly capable of taking a "meh" image that has some likable qualities, persuading yourself that it is great, and writing some arty nonsense about linear arabeques and how you love moving your eyes about the image. We've seen that line on many failed nominations. The fact that photo wasn't framed well enough to avoid the lay-by garbage is simply a photographic failure. Your nomination excuse for it is really rather desperate.

Poco, you know I regard you as one of the finest photographers here, and your record at FP confirms that. Kenny's vote was blunt but was about the image, nothing more, and to claim it was "disrespectful" implies you want some sugar coating and for us all to praise you before delivering the bad news. Do we have to begin every oppose with "With the greatest respect to my fellow reviewers who have supported this image, and to this fine photographer who's work I have often praised, I'm sorry to say ...". I didn't mention the backlog until Ikan's rather strange comment that "Poco has a very long backlog of photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP" which, the way it is worded, suggests it is maintained for the purpose of attracting bonus nominations by others, which I doubt is your intention. The fact that you can find some old images in your backlog that do well at FPC doesn't really form any kind of scientific argument against the fairly obvious reasoning that great images will tend to be nominated quickly and weak images sit on the pile (which has 458 images). Poco, if you want to show respect to your fellow contributors here, who tirelessly review your images in a constant stream, who don't always word their reviews as carefully/respectfully as you might want, then you could vote at FPC. Last time you voted on an image that didn't have "DD" in its filename was February. -- Colin (talk)

Colin, I understand your point better, but really, my remark is "rather desperate"? If so, what about my remark on the nomination just above this, which looks likely to be very quickly voted in by overwhelming consensus? I'm still pretty annoyed at you, as I think of all kinds of great art that's very frank and doesn't avoid the ugly parts of reality (not an "excuse" or "arty nonsense", but decades of modernist works going all the way back to the frank depictions of factories and smokestack emissions in Impressionist art, and I don't have to go further afield than "Impression:Aube" for that), but I do respect your right to have a strong and vociferous opinion and paid a lot of attention to things you told me before, with improved results you seem to be ignoring. Remember, though, that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark on the nomination above is fine: you aren't "desperately" trying to turn a defect into a strength, and are pretty honest about the weaknesses. And you know I approve of nominators giving an explanation of why they think the image is worth featuring. I'm all for depicting the "ugly parts of reality" but if we're discussing "art" then really it has to be the intention of the artist and then in this forum at least, for there to be some consensus that the artist has achieved that aim. I really honestly don't think Poco took this photo of the low cloud in a valley in Serbia in order to make some social point about people leaving litter in lay-byes. -- Colin (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand and take your point on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin: I'm not made of butter, I don't ask for something like "With the greatest respect to my fellow reviewers who have supported this image, and to this fine photographer who's work I have often praised, I'm sorry to say ..." but I'd just like to remind to everybody that behind each picture there is a photographer who intended to show something to the viewer. "Random" means to me something like pressing the shutter buttom without any criteria, and that's something I gave up doing 20 years ago.

You surely are right when you criticize that I haven't participated in FPC for months, so I did it today and will continue doing it until I I run into troubles once more for expressing my honest opinion. You don't mind investing hours in discussions about who is right and why, and I respect that, but that's exactly what I am not ready to do here. I rather spend my time elsewhere. Poc o² 12:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KennyOMG: Sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't uploaded any new images on Commons since March, just on flickr. My submission for Wikimania to tackle the problems listed on my user page in a workshop was rejected. It looks like unfortunately community topics have been reduced to the minimum in the programme, which agains make me think that nobody cares... Poc o² 12:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"until I run into troubles once more for expressing my honest opinion". It is perfectly posible to find and valid to state that one finds this composition "random". Your defence that the image was not randomly taken isn't, I'm afraid, any defence at all. Respect works both ways, Poco. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look for any defence and wouldn't know why I'd have to, Colin and I do considere myself respectful towards others. Can you leave it here, it doesn't go anywhere. Poc o² 18:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per Colin. Daphne Lantier 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments. I continue not to understand why anyone would find this composition random, but I do understand the criticism about the garbage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Fort Point.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 19:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While not a bad picture in itself, I think this is one particular subject where the bar is set really, really high and unless the image is spectacular will not, or rather should not pass FP. As is, while not bad, it falls quite a bit short of WOW. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sufficiently wowed... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kenny. The bar is high with this much photographed object. I´m not really convinced withe the left frame.--Milseburg (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking for a better one I give up opposing. There insn´t one convincing me 100%. Never been there, I didnt´t know, that it seems to be very difficult to find an optimal shooting location. Maybe Baker Beach is a bit better.

Support Finally I think now, this image belongs to the Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Also the slight haze is ok and typical for this motif. --Milseburg (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others: Good, but doesn't really stand out among the masses. --El Grafo (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear FP for me.I cannot find masses of FPs of that bridge and especially from that point of view.--Ermell (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took this picture when I realized that we don't have any decent pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge from that side of the Bay. If you browse throught the category Golden Gate Bridge from Fort Point you'll see what I mean. Now, there are many different ways you can photograph an iconic building like this. I chose to take a picture that shows it in a realistic and documentary style. Not one of those HDR / fake sky / etc. images. I tried to show the bridge the way I see it every morning. Ideally with some fog that slowly dissolves in the sun. I thought it was important to include Fort Point because it was almost demolished (the 1930s plan called for its removal), and I also tried to capture the enormous scale of the building. I acknowledge that other pictures might have more of a "wow factor" than this one. However, I'd just like to point out that I consciously captured the scene "as is", because I'd like us to have at least one featured picture of the bridge done without special effects. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. I got actually even more puzzled today when I looked at the Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Seems like we had no success in over a decade with creating a picture that shows the bridge as it is ;-)[reply]
Support For Ermell!--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. 16 MP in reasonably good early morning light is quite sufficient for a normal featured picture, but for something so heavily photographed with multiple FPs already, I'd expect more, either on resolution or "wow" factor. The bar is simply set quite high for the Golden Gate Bridge, even if this exact view has no FPs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully considered oppose, now that King, who has a lot of SF FPs himself, has !voted. I fully endorse Frank's initiative in trying to take an FP-level image of the bridge from this angle, but as good as it is the bar is still higher. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd like to comment on something else: there are a couple of white spots that I'm not sure about (see annotations), perhaps they're pixel flaws or perhaps it's nothing. But please take a look.--Peulle (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle, it's birds. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment KennyOMG, Milseburg, El Grafo, King of hearts, Daniel Case: thanks a lot for your feedback. I really appreciate it. Over the past couple of years, feedback here on Commons has been essential for me to improve my photography skills. – Would you mind pointing me to photos on the web (Flickr, 500px, etc.) that come closer to what you're looking for? I'm really at a loss. Once I get a better idea of what you'd consider a superior picture, I'll go back and try to take a better image for Commons. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is a classical subject, nevertheless I like the picture.--Christof46 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. --Karelj (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version, not featured[edit]

Comment I went back to the Presidio this morning and took a different picture. Do you like this version better? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this one better, but it is not an alternative. You should make another nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. Will do. Thanks! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagartija de lava de San Cristóbal (Microlophus bivittatus), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 46.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 22:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Male exemplar of a San Cristóbal lava lizard (Microlophus bivittatus), a species of lava lizard endemic to San Cristóbal Island (where the image was taken) in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Poc o² 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is out here. --Mile (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Looks like a standard lizard pic. Composition looks haphazard. Daphne Lantier 18:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daphne: Standard? Please, show me a second lizzard with this sharpness and resolution Poc o² 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I said standard, I was referring more to the composition. The sharpness and resolution might make it a viable VIC, but there's nothing wowing overall. The lizard is sitting on a rock (part of which is cropped out) with a busy background. I also wonder about the lens focal length. I would think you could get closer to a sitting lizard than 200mm. In the end, I'm just saying the image doesn't wow me; I'm not saying it isn't a quality image. Daphne Lantier 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Impressive, but the tail of the lizard lacks of definition. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:EstatuaTumbaFliaAlzaga-jun2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 22:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue on Martin de Alzaga and his family's tomb

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good at full screen on my laptop, but at full size, highlights are blown. Could you fix that? I'm not guaranteed to support if you do (I like the statue, so I may support, but I'm less sure about the other things at the bottom, so I might not vote), but if not, I will probably oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per Ikan, there's a couple of technical issues --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others wrt blown highlights but the composition at the bottom is cluttered. Not even a QI I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Highlights fixed @Ikan Kekek: --Ezarateesteban 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image no longer appears to have any shadow or black tones at all. I think you need to learn to use RawTherapee better or else find a better tool. You could try "Capture One Express (for Sony) 10.0 Windows", which is what Jee uses. -- Colin (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the highlights less bright. I'm still not feeling wowed, though. The bottom and top of the statue are noticeably unsharp and the sky is a bit blotchy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; CaptureOne is free for Sony raw files. It has wonderful ability to keep the black as black even if we lift the shadows a lot. J e e 02:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, CA and cluttered bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination thanks to all Ezarateesteban 12:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Монашките испоснички пештери во Зрзе.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 10:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Petrovnik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's an awful lot of chroma noise in this image. Now feeling any wow either, though. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I think there's the beginnings of an FP here compositionally, I see the same technical flaws as Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others.--Peulle (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 11:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Thailand
Info created by PumpkinSky - uploaded by PumpkinSky - nominated by User:PumpkinSky, note some insect removals were done by User:Michielverbeek back on 16 April 2017. -- PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure: This image was previously nominated at FPC back in late April 2017. I did not have Lightroom back then and have now learned to use it. The first nomination can be seen here, but it's pulling up the current photo version, not the April version. Prior photo versions can, of course, be viewed in the file history. PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but to me it looks overprocessed and not quite sharp. Could be a VI, though, since it's better than the other images in the category.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of detail in the bricks, color noise in the sky, and what's with that weird little square up near the top center? I think Peulle is on to something. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Daniel Case: I've fixed the box--don't know where that came from--probably a stray click; and worked on the sky and bricks. If you think it is salvaageable from this point, please let me know what to work on; if you think it's not salvegable please let me know that too. I wish I knew about RAW back then. PumpkinSky talk 19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over processed. The original suffered from poor lighting. That's not easily fixable for colour images as the results tend to look artificial. The sky is starting to show some colour posterisation in the grey clouds from being pushed. The brickwork and leaves are too contrasty. I see some odd adjustments in the EXIF. For example, this is an ISO 100 image, so I wouldn't expect much if any NR yet we have strong luminance and colour NR. With a Sony sensor there's usually very little reason to touch the colour NR slider unless one has extreme ISO values. Some colour saturation/hue adjustments seem quite extreme too. Best to keep those adjustments modest -- were you trying to make an overcast sky blue? -- Colin (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Colin: Yes, I was trying to get the sky blue. It sounds like this isn't fixable so I'll withdraw it. PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eskibel - Carretera A-4101 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 20:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing anything exceptional here, I'm afraid. A road is a very common motif. -- Colin (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically okay at a glance, but.... it's just a road. -- KTC (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A very good picture with some poetic possibilities (imagining what's down the road where we can't see it), but not an FP IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Basotxerri (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oak in 20 metre per second wind.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 18:01:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae
Info It's been a while since we had some outrageous abstract photo here, so here goes. :) When the wind is strong, water is not the only thing that moves in a forest. All by me, -- cart-Talk 18:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 18:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see all moved, motion blur, what is the subject of the picture? Ezarateesteban 22:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The subject is the motion-blurred leaves, and I like the resulting composition enough to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ah, an interesting idea - that could definitely work. Here it doesn't, unfortunately. What this picture's lacking is some kind of firm, stable element, like well visible trunks. But for some reason all trunks and bigger branches are really blurred as well... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At 20 M/s the whole tree, trunk and all, sways and moves (at 30-35 it snaps). :) I was watching the movement of the branches and wondered what it would look like if the whole motion was caught in a long exposure shot, the same way we do with water. I would have liked an even longer exposure, but it was rather sunny and I have no ND filter. The motion was different in all the 10-some shots I made, I liked this best because of the circular motion in it. At least you cant say I'm not testing things. ;) --cart-Talk 08:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for elaborating on your approach. Interesting! And please, do test things as much and widely as possible! :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Per Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermell (talk • contribs) 06:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the well-argued vote of Martin Falbisoner. --Peulle (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ah well, it was a longshot and the comments more positive than I had thought. Thanks all! --cart-Talk 08:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vettisfossenvideo.webm, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 12:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created, uploaded & nominated by Kallerna. Not sure about the criteria for videos, but I guess this one has a lot of "wow". —kallerna™ 12:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its too short, and could be in 16:9, not 9:16. Strange to see. Also quality is not great, like not in HD. --Mile (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mile ... I really don't think this phone-style video works for this. When it comes back up I want to see more of the landscape. If it had just been a static image of the waterfall, without any attempt to show the surroundings, I think it could have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also agree with Mile. It is too hasty, like a video you do when you don't want a too large file to send to friends on the phone. The rollercoaster panning of the shot does not make for a pleasant experience either. --cart-Talk 09:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. It has a bit of wow, but that's all it has.--Peulle (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winter Landscape with Brabrand Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Landscape
Info In this sunny June weather, here's a lovely winter landscape painting to cool you down. Painting by Christian David Gebauer. Photo all by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- of course -- --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what Christmas cards are made of...Atsme 📞 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like Currier and Ives PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love those old days! J e e 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
edges are seen on left and right side. --Mile (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the frame is visible. There is nothing more to trim without losing painting. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could be some shadow from the frame, that is often a problem at museums. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see a way to avoid this without removing the painting from the frame. It isn't imo intrusive as the painting is quite dark. If our artwork experts think it is fine to trim a pixel off the left and right, then I can do that, otherwise I'd prefer to show as much of the painting as possible. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - To me it is good as it is. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice cooling motif. It is captured very well so that you can see the brush strokes but they are not lighted in a way that disturbs the painting. Knowing how meticulous you are, I have no doubt the WB and color correspond with the original even, if they are a bit different from the other photos of this painting. --cart-Talk 09:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work, you can even see the cracks in the paint.--Peulle (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media#Landscape

File:Gevlekte orchis. Orchis (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata) 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 04:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Orchidaceae .
Info Spotted Orchid (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata). Spotted Orchid is on the red list in the Netherlands. The blurred background is the natural habitat of the orchid. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very sharp, good composition, and I really like the background/bokeh --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The noise reduction is borderline. It could be better. Also I would crop the right blue(?) flower. But the decisive point for my oppose is the background above that is disturbing me. Sorry. --Hockei (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Hockei. Daphne Lantier 16:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hockei. I honestly wouldn't have been the only one to oppose based on the background, but it does bug me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I cropped it, and like it much better - see File:Gevlekte orchis. Orchis (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata) 05 (cropped).jpg - there is also a similar image File:Gevlekte orchis. Orchis (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata) 06.jpg that may be a better one. Atsme 📞 16:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, another version[edit]

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Orchidaceae .
Info Spotted Orchid (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata). Spotted Orchid is on the red list in the Netherlands. The blurred background is the natural habitat of the orchid.
Support Atsme 📞 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging opposers to see if they like this version better: Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Ikan Kekek Atsme 📞 19:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Better, yes, but undecided on whether to support or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this too. J e e 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 09:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

The chosen alternative is: File:Gevlekte orchis. Orchis (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata) 05.jpg

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Dachgeschoss -- 2017 -- 9918-24 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 04:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info There is a colored version of this image too. IMO the black-and-white one is the better one. It emphasizes the structure and the room. --XRay ^talk 04:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am currently reading "Black & White Photography: The timeless art of monochrome in the post-digital age" by Michael Freeman (only £5.99 in the Kindle edition which looks great on my phone/PC). Freeman extensively discusses "why b&w", and this image is a great example. -- Colin (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: didn't notice he had a new one out: thanks for the info → paperback pre-ordered. --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An irresistible storage of angles and lines. --cart-Talk 09:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agree, the b&w version is better. Lovely. Nice job. PumpkinSky talk 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent bw conversion --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral blacks are too harsh for the mood I think. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are a lot of textures and contrasts everywhere, this picture is ideal for B&W. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The emptiness of the room comes through more clearly in black and white. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice :) - Benh (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really good - Price Zero|^talk 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, yes! Atsme 📞 01:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 09:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings

File:2016.10.04.-04-Mannheim Vogelstang--Haussperling-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 10:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Passeridae (Sparrows)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurred thing at left is way too distracting. The bird eye is also in shadow. Yann (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a

Comment. I don't think that the nature wants to expose eyes of (this kind of) birds to the sun. Also the area around the eyes is black so it has a reinforcing effect. --Hockei (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true about birds' eyes. 16:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Info New version with changed crop. --Hockei (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lošmi (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely! Atsme 📞 16:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The softness and delicacy may be an inadvertent result of uncertain processing, or they may be deliberate, but the end result is the same different take on this very common sort of image here. This way, it almost looks like what you see printed on the side of that cup your grandmother serves you tea in when you go to her house. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Passeridae (Sparrows)

File:A mountain seen while going Dhumba lake.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 11:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Iceshra - uploaded by Iceshra - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Yann (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are those halos on the left, where the brown mountain in the foreground meets the white background?--Peulle (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- KennyOMG (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And which mountains are those? Categories are missing, and the image title should also say so. I'd guess Nilgiri North and Tilicho left in the background (under the white cloud), but I don't know for sure. Lupo 13:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Reasonably well-done from a technical standpoint, but compositionally it doesn't stand out from so many of our other mountain landscapes. It feels, actually, like the right half of a possibly featurable panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Further information about the motif are lacking. I´m not conviced with the composition. IMHO there ist too much empty blue sky. --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:EstatuaFliaAlzaga-jun2017edited.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 12:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue in Martin de Alzzga and his family's tomb

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 12:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 12:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom part is much better, but the overexposed parts of the statue are still remaining --Llez (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highlights fixed, thanks @Llez: --Ezarateesteban 01:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately, they now look posterized. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reprocessed Ezarateesteban 03:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 0015-21.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 07:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBoth sides of the back wall look overexposed to me. PumpkinSky talk 11:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were lights behind the wall and the paintings are pale. --XRay ^talk 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so they've faded. I'll go ahead and support. Nice job given the conditions.PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevertheless I'll check for improvements. Thanks for your advice. --XRay ^talk 15:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow.--Peulle (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a bit darker, but nevertheless --Llez (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 17:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany

File:Silesian Beskids - hiking trial to Barania Góra peak 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 08:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah! Winter! That's what I'd need right now. It's almost 30 degrees centigrade in my office... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice and so on, but FP? For me it is a common not special sight. --Hockei (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading other people point of view including agreement with Ikan I change my vote to

Neutral. --Hockei (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The contrasts between the sky, forest and crystaline snow gives sufficient wow factor for me. The depth of the image is enough to see the frost fog in the valleys far below.--Peulle (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Puelle PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something that never happen in South India; so I may be biased. J e e 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - The technical quality of this photo is really high and it has a nice winter mood. I especially like the frosty trees and the pastel colors in the background. However, the crop on the upper right bugs me enough to mildly oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - love the layered background on the left, the colors and sparkle of the snow. The crop could have started at the gap just past the first few trees on right as the overall beauty of the picture is more to the left. Atsme 📞 16:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin; it was the nominator's good fortune that I first saw this on a particularly warm and humid day, in my own home, which by choice does not have air conditioning. Makes me want to go down to the basement, get skis or snowshoes, and enter it. I can practically feel the crispness of the air. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 17:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Guanajuato pano1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
InfoGuanajuato is a city and the capital of the state of the same name. Situated in a narrow valley, most of its narrow and winding streets are alleys that cars cannot pass through, and some are long sets of stairs up the mountainsides. Many of the city’s thoroughfares are partially or fully underground. The historic center has numerous small plazas and colonial-era mansions, churches and civil constructions built using pink or green sandstone. Historically Guanajuato was an influential mining city that, in the 18th century, accounted for two-thirds of the world’s silver production. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The shadow in the bottom is distractiong and the image needs a better stitching, in some areas it is tilted in one direction and in some other in the other direction. Quality, on the other side is very good. Poco² 18:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you mark/tag some zig-zag tilting areas please? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, Poco, I saw. Restitched from scratch, seems ok'ish now. Please mark if you see any errors still. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added 3 notes, if you fix those areas, then you are good. Still, as mentioned, I find the areas in shadow too prominent, I'd probably crop the left side, as you couldn't anyhow capture the whole city from that spot and there is not much detail there to enjoy. What software do you use for the stitching? A template like {{Panorama}} would be pretty informative. Finally, I find the file size too big, going down from 30 to 12 MB wouldn't mean a lost of quality that you can perceive IMO (My camera delivers in a frame the same resolution like this panorama and I have played around with this variables often). Poco² 09:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I recommend using 11/12 for Photoshop quality == 90% for Lightroom quality (Lightroom only has 13 steps like Photoshop -- the 0..100 levels are misleading). There really is little point in using 12 or 100% as the extra bytes aren't winning anything visible. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since storage space is not an issue I'm using whatever I use for saves. And believe it or not, sometimes you can spot the diff between 90 or 98 (which is what I use). @Poco a poco: I ran into a weird problem where no matter what I do some images will be distorted and tilted after warping, have no idea how to fix it. If you encountred anything like this before and know how to fix I'd gladly take any advice. Anyhow withdrawing this one for now as it might not be fixed for some time. KennyOMG (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        When I asked about the SW you use my intention was to help. If I don't the tools you use I cannot say in general how you can improve your images. Photoshop/Lr would be problematic because you have not many possibilities to steer the stitching process, but this kind of tropics can be, indeed tricky. Poc o² 21:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great job, but the shadow in front is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for now until issues are fixed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guildfordia yoka delicata 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:18:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 20:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really cool shape and texture, really well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 16:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Guépier d'Europe ichkeul 112.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 15:20:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by User:El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice bird, good composition and quality. Yann (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ --Hockei (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bottom crop is too tight on the tail feathers. Daphne Lantier 16:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FixedNew version with changed crop. I think it's ok now , Daphne Lantier --Hockei --Yann El Golli Mohamed 17:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent capture. Good and sharp rendition of the plumage.--Peulle (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 20:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good; but just turning the head in a few minutes difference will not make another FP. J e e 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jee. @Yann, Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Peulle, and Der Wolf im Wald: @PumpkinSky: -- you can support both if you like but just making you aware we promoted the other side of his head only three weeks ago, and this frame wasn't uploaded at the time. I think El Golli Mohamed has uploaded many fine bird photos, and I'd prefer so see a nomination of a different one. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Machts nichts. It's the same species, maybe even the same bird, but it's not the same picture nor another version of the same picture. According to the EXIF data the two pics were shot at different times on the same day. It's in a different position and in a different pose. Oppose if you like though, @Colin: . PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Being new at FPC, I'm still a bit confused. Last time I asked, the answers seemed to conclude that it would be OK with several FPs of the same species of bird, but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP. Thinking about it now, I think I'll make my own decision instead of looking for a consensus: the way I read the rules, they want to avoid having several FP images that are very similar. Otherwise users would just upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs. I think this case hits that criterion - the only difference is the direction of the bird's head, everything else is the same IMO: position, location, time (only 4 min between). Personally, I think this capture is slightly better, so I would prefer to have the other image delisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the photographers here will have many photos of each subject taken at essentially the same moment. For example, in the three minutes between these two photos, the camera EXIF claims 44 shots were taken. We choose the best one, rather than nominating every variation of subject movement, and I think most of us here would not like FP to become a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured. That's what "finest" is about. Like El Grafo, I would support a "delist and replace" if El Golli Mohamed thinks this one is superior. I think they are much the same. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Peulle and Colin: Your posts explain your positions better. The crux of this issue is shown by "but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP", if 44 shots in 4 minutes is too similar, is 50 in 5 minutes ok? Just how much of the body position needs to change? "upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs" and "a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured" suggest we want to avoid "FP count-itis", which I agree with. So the question becomes, where exactly do you draw the line? People aren't going to agree on this. I'll ponder this issue more. PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think anyone would support trying to regulate this with something official, so there is no need to "draw the line". Why reduce the argument down to one that a machine could judge? Generally, this has not been a problem: most nominators quickly get the message that they should nominate a variety of dissimilar images. Mostly this sort of thing happens by accident because people are unaware of the nomination of a similar image. Part of the review process is examining similar images and similar FPs, and sometimes nominators forget to do this. FP is not just a method for choosing "our finest" work, but a forum where people enjoy reviewing great photos. If folk started nominating a series of similar images they took at the same time, perhaps with the argument "this one is just as good, therefore should be featured too" then we'd all get really bored really quickly. And there would also be a feeling that games were being played simply to get more FPs (not saying this is the case here). -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        By drawing the line I meant we each have to decide where that line is ourselves. People will never agree what is too similar or not. PumpkinSky talk 14:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree not everyone will agree on each image, which is why we vote/discuss, but the "line" doesn't have to be determined by some personal algorithm like you seem to imply with the 44 vs 50 frames question. It is more of a gut feeling and judgment call. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. FP is about images that stand out against others, so featuring basically the same motif twice doesn't make much sense to me. I like the composition of this on a bit better, so I'd probably support a "delist and replace" nomination, though. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jee. --Hockei (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though an analogous photograph, of the same author and about the same subject, was featured some weeks ago, it does not diminish the quality of this photo or its usefulness. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Harlock81, QI is the project where useful/high-quality is judged without reference to previous works. FP is for the "best" or "finest". -- Colin (talk)
  - Colin, IMHO if "the best" was been meant in a so absolute way, probably none picture presented in the last weeks could be considered appropriate for FP. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are misinterpreting what "the best" means. -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that "the best" and "the finest" aren't clearly defined in the rules. It seems to me that Colin interprets that to mean "the finest within a group of photos that are highly similar" (akin to VI rules). Even that begs the question "what exactly does highly similar mean?". As I said before, people simply aren't going to agree on this topic...it's too nebulous to precisely pin down. PumpkinSky talk 10:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are seeing problems where there aren't. Of course these cannot be "clearly defined". It is our job as "the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons". It seems pretty clear to me the community is capable of determining this without rules, an generally it does not require this much navel gazing as to whether we need rules or not. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delist and replace. Charles (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Charlesjsharp and others above. Atsme 📞 15:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trithemis pallidinervis 1725.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 18:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info created and uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - support everything except the soft focus. Atsme 📞 16:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The eyes should be sharp and they obviously are not in this case. Apparently was well concealed here.--Ermell (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Atsme and Ermell -- Wolf im Wald 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Dull light and good but not exceptional sharpness, so though quite good, this photo doesn't seem to me to be quite up to the level of really outstanding odonata FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice dragonfly. But the quality is not good enough. Low Sharpness and too much noise. Also the crop could be better. Right and left is too much empty room. --Hockei (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quite surprised it got QI. Charles (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 03:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Leptosia nina, Psyche, Wandering Snowflake, is a small butterfly of the family Pieridae found in Asia. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 03:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 03:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 04:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really striking as a thumbnail, and just as good at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quality is perfect for FP, Jee, but you already have an FP of this species taken on the same day File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-003.jpg - is there a significant difference? If not, why nominate another? Charles (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Charles, I expected this question while preparing this nom, and this is my thoughts: I see not much similarity in these two pictures other than same species. The previous FP is a classic profile photo for the Wikipedia; this is an artistic composition without giving emphasize to subject details. Here the light is also special; the butterfly is warming up by posing against the morning sun. The diffused flash ensure no details hidden under shadows even though shooting against the sun. I will not nominate this photo as the composition is very much similar to existing FP. (Sorry for the late reply; electricity and Internet went down in the huge Monsoon rain while I was typing a reply yesterday. Still no electricity though Internet and telephone came back.) J e e 04:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support As it seems that FP voters are happy with more than one nomination, that's OK with me. Charles (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! -- Wolf im Wald 23:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely compo and good details Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yesss! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 16:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:2016.09.09.-07-Anglersee Bruehl--Grosse Heidelibelle-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 10:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it although DOF is pretty low. -- Wolf im Wald 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - only the head and top left wing is in focus which gives me pause but overall it's quite catchy. Atsme 📞 16:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I used F13. This is according to my experience the best compromise between sharpness and DOF. F14, the next step, brings not much more worthwhile DOF in a picture like this and then F16 is hardly usable in most cases. -- Hockei (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{Macros of tiny fluttery critters are near impossible to capture in full focus. Totally understand. Detail in the head, legs & anterior carapace are great!! Atsme 📞 03:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 16:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 (the original ) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 8 (the rip-off ) --Johann Jaritz ^(talk) 01:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and so on... --Llez (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 17:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:360° vom Schesaplana-Massiv.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Hauptbahnhof, Ostseite, 170430, ako.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Half geopende bloem van Rhododendron ponticum.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Battery East.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tokyo Metro and JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.jpg