Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2019

File:Madam Felix (Unsplash).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2018 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Bill Hamway, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Moving portrait. We can only imagine the horrors she's seen, and she survived it all. And I think that's reflected on her face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, there is an erroneous category that I will delete after posting this: Category:Women of the United States. She is clearly Haitian, and the picture was taken in Haiti. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed. --Yann (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The background is too large. This framing is not working for me. A lot should be cut IMO. There's also a white halo on the right side of her face, visible at thumb size -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see the white halo now, and unfortunately, I can't unsee it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin and Ikan Kekek: That's a very minor issue IMO, I don't even know how to fix it, or even if it needs to be fixed, but I welcome anyone who wants to try. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this halo is certainly because the author made a local correction using the selective brush on Lightroom. Probably the face was too dark, or not contrasted enough. Now fixing this issue without the RAW file is not as easy as it seems. It can be done quickly and superficially on Photoshop, but for a clean correction totally invisible at full size, it takes a while IMO. Not sure I'll have the time to handle this in the next days. But if someone else do that I would suggest to upload the new file under a square format not much bigger than the size of the head -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like to have head room in a portrait like this. Thanks for offering your help. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please respect that this is the artistic creation of Bill Hamway. While legally the CC0 declaration lets you do what you want with it, morally it is no longer Hamway's image if you start mucking about with crops and selective brushes. FWIW, I think the space is room to think. If you really like the image but think it could be improved then when don't you try contacting the guy and chat to him about it. Sometimes a halo forms due to the tonemapping adjustments in Lightroom, so that's another possibility as well as local adjustment. I'd much rather we feature (or not feature) Hamway's work, than something altered without his permission. -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:West Pier April 2018 04.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2019 at 11:23:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info New and old monuments on the Brighton seafront. Remains of the historic West Pier and the new British Airways i360. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perspective? Charles (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried, but the result was not very good imo.--ArildV (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're probably too close to the poles. Charles (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Its water behind me.--ArildV (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer the perspective-corrected version. Having the buildings lean like this is a bit too strange for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great composition. (And of course this can't be "perspective corrected" because the architectural perspective has at its basis that the observer is looking horizontally from infinity, whereas we are clearly below the British Airways i360 looking up at the capsule) -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A small tilt. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done--ArildV (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No. I think it needs perspective correction. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would work if it were perfectly symmetric... Yann (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I basically agree with Lothar, as per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very much regretful oppose per Lothar. Yes, we are looking up at the tower, but in real life the buildings on the sides wouldn't be in imminent danger of collapse. I can accept some tilt in the name of not distorting the image so much, but not this much. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt @Spurzem, Ikan Kekek, and Daniel Case: this is what Daniel refers to "real life". This isn't camera distortion; it is what you see when you look up. You don't pay much attention to it and the edges of your vision are kinda blurry, but the verticals converge in reality too (just as parallels on the ground converge when you look down a road or railway track into the distance). The difference is that this entire scene is captured and frozen with the camera looking up at the capsule, whereas if you were standing there, as you looked at the distant buildings, your gaze would shift to a more level viewing direction, and they'd no longer slope. And as you gazed up and down the pillars, in 3D, shifting focus all the time, your brain would be constantly saying to you "It's ok, these are actually straight up and down". And since your retina is curved, your brain is constantly straightening out those bent lines your eye produces. A more representative equivalent to reality would be one of those 360° viewers that let you shift your gaze around a sphere, and where the edges of the frame are wonky but but straighten out as you shift them to the centre of the viewport. The perspective here is correct. It is the perspective one gets standing on the beach looking up at the capsule.

We may be trained that buildings should be rendered in 2D with parallel vertical lines, but that is only an approximation to reality, and only looks realistic if the vertical angle of view is modest -- which is best achieved from a distance and from a height. The only way you will get a correct perspective of this scene, with verticals going straight up your monitor screen, and the capsule faithfully rendered how the eye sees it, is if Arild bought a drone and took the photo at height and some way out to sea. The vertical angle-of-view here is simply too great for the standard rectilinear perspective to look "normal" (remember that nearly half the vertical angle of view, when standing on the beach, is "wasted" going into the sand). The effect of "correcting" the verticals does weird things to the base of the capsule and it starts looking like it is tilted 45°. We sometimes see this when Diliff includes too much ceiling in one of his cathedral interiors, and round discs on the ceiling end up looking like they are angled and heavily distorted. The "corrected" version looks like computer generated art by someone who hasn't yet grasped how perspective and viewpoint works. Please just oppose because you don't like it, that you wish it had been photographed from further back and further up, and stop trying to claim the laws of physics need fixing. -- Colin (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stated my case above, and I didn't mention physics once. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really 'what you see when you look up'. Most of us have binocular vision. Charles (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, binocular vision makes no different to the vertical field of view, or to how parallels converge with distance. If your point is that our eyes move about as we gaze on different parts of the scene, then yes, that is a difference from a wide angle still picture on your monitor. It doesn't change the fact that verticals converge when you look up from the ground near a tall building. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, you agreed with Lothar, that it "needs perspective correction", which implies the perspective is wrong, faulty, and could be fixed. Let's imagine a standard architectural perspective taken from this viewpoint on the sand. According to Google Maps, Aldrid is 50m from the base of the i360, which is 162m tall. If we pretend Aldrid is 2m tall and holding the camera to his eye, then we have a right-angled triangle 50m base and 160m tall with an angle of 73° at the camera. To get the vertical angle-of-view, we double that. So 146°. The widest ever rectilinear lens is 126° diagonal angle-of-view, much less vertically. Anything above 100° is heavily distorted. It is not "correct". Compared to 73°, the maximum the human eye can see above the horizontal, if looking straight ahead, is about 50° but that isn't even clear or in colour. We can only see in colour up about 25° and much less than that clearly. Any human standing here, hoping to see the top of the i360, is looking up with their head tilted back. Demanding a standard architectural perspective with a vertical field of view of 146° is just crazy man. The only fix that can be done here, to get the kind of image some prefer/want, is to get much much further back and ideally about 80m up in the sky. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of a standard architectural photo, File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg is I believe about 25m tall and I was 160m distant when photographing it. So the vertical angle of view of that photo is more like 20°. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how the BBC reported the i360 -- a "Getty Images" picture taken from even closer with even more sloping verticals. Brighton's own paper here -- with a "Press Association" image taken from even closer to the ground. And in today's Guardian newspaper, this photo of the Houses of Parliament with gloriously sloping verticals. Taken by Andy Rain, chief regional photographer for the European Press Agency. Guess we should ping him an email about his newbie mistake. -- Colin (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I said is that I prefer the "corrected" version. I simply like it better, although I'm not sure I'd vote to feature it, if nominated. And I find this degree of slant to the buildings strange to look at. It's an aesthetic reaction. It's totally fine to disagree with it, as you do, and obviously, there are other professional photographers who do, but that's what it is. No weighty principles are involved on my end. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan thanks for the explanation, and I agree with your usage here: that when the photographer is closer to the subject than the subject is tall, then "correction" should be used within quote marks. -- Colin (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but maybe that means that in my opinion, an FP from this angle might not be possible. And if so, it wouldn't be the first time a particular view of a particular motif were deemed not to be featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well much of composition is finding the correct position from which to take a photograph, so not surprising that many positions aren't regarded as ideal or best. My argument has simply been that if you don't like the results here, the solution is only to re-take it from much further back (and perhaps higher up). It can't be made "correct" in software; the laws of physics and mathematics don't allow it. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support "perspective correction" works reasonably well if the subject is flat enough so as to not giving you many clues that the picture was taking with the camera pointed up. If you try it on a subject like this, it will just look even weirder. --El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ladinas, Andiast, Resgia Gneida Sägerei (d.j.b.) 09.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2019 at 06:58:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Detail of the machine in the old sawmill.
Info Detail of the machine in the old sawmill. The sawmill dates from the time of the black-and-white photographs. A black and white picture seemed appropriate to me.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good composition. Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the composition compelling -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake mapourika NZ.jpeg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2018 at 23:52:22

Info A quite early FP from the year 2005: the technical quality isn't great and the view is quite ordinary. (Original nomination)
Delist --Msaynevirta (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the composition. I take your point about the technical quality and will think about it, but that seems to me a much stronger basis for delisting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Quite nice but unfortunately the quality just isn't there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - This pains me, but I have to admit, if this were a current FPC nom, I would oppose. It's a beautiful composition, but the dock is way too noisy, e.g. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Peulle (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep still a good image (a lot of QI have not this visual result level) + not so bad for 3.2 MP camera. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist God but too small by modern standards. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after more than 10 years, still like it villy ♦✎ 19:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Nice scenery, but the quality isn't there. --A.Savin 15:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Christian --Milseburg (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. -A.Savin 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Art of Rajasthan 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2019 at 18:01:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Art of Rajasthan, India -created by Fitindia - uploaded by Fitindia - nominated by Fitindia -- FitIndia ^Talk 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- FitIndia ^Talk 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd need more information in the description to vote for this. I don't know what I'm looking at or from what time period the object originates.--Peulle (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle, Have added to the description. Please do have a look thank you. FitIndia ^Talk 23:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is just not working to me. Sorry --Photographer 02:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose per the remarks above. The main thing that I perceive is that it's too close to the bamboo on its left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not working for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2019 at 19:28:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC) -- JJ Harrison (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renominate former FPD, let it be my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 16:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment will support when dust spot pointed out on QI nomination is removed. See note. Charles (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose temporary oppose of this fine image George Chernilevsky till dust spots removed. Charles (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well excecuted --Photographer 02:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 18:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:View of a frosty evening through a window on a Scottish farm.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2019 at 21:33:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by me. The window is quite dirty but I like it, I think it gives the image a good atmosphere. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice idea allready done on FPC, IMHO you could try the combination of severals pictures or just more DoF to keep the windows marquee on focus. --Photographer 02:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could have tried focus stacking. The dead bugs would be interesting to look at but the window was really dirty and I don't think we'd see much of the garden. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The dead bugs would be interesting to look at"

. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the window makes an ordinary winter scene extraordinary. Was it a casement window or the lower half of a sash window? Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Good question. It was the upper part of a sash window (I was standing on a table with a tripod). --Podzemnik (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duly categorized. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 18:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:2013-12-21 19-13-03 lumieres-noel-montbeliard.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2019 at 07:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded by User:ComputerHotline - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated this photo for a feature in December, 2016, and it looked set to pass, but I withdrew because of concerns about FoP in France. Those concerns were considered and found meritless, so I am renominating. Merry Christmas, everyone! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I still believe it's a violation of French copyright law and I do not consider the linked deletion discussion to be dispositive of the issue in the slightest regardless of how it was closed (it's a picture of "light", not a picture of a lighting display ... really?) Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how display of Christmas decoration could be a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world it wouldn't be, but in nations that either have no FoP provisions (France) or exempt public artworks (the USA), any arrangement of lights, even those that stay still, is as surely a three-dimensional work of art as a sculpture or statue, or the Eiffel Tower's nighttime lighting. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, Daniel. I will not withdraw this time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to, just saying that my objection stands. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this question of copyright interesting, as it's true all the subject of the photograph is here. Apart from these lights, the picture has nothing really special. Thus, is it like a sculpture protected by the law, or more like a street ? The illumination of the Eiffel Tower is clearly under copyright (the society earned 1 million euros in 2002 from these), but I could not find texts nor articles on the web in French related to this kind of protection for other monuments or structures. On the contrary, it seems that similar Christmas decorations in Paris are accepted and widespread on Commons. Thus I don't see any problem with this picture, until some specific references are given -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the light of the Eiffel Tower which is protected, but a light show, which included video and fireworks. There is no copyright on light, and any simple decoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the light of the Eiffel Tower, which is protected. Since 1985. Today you want to take the picture of the Eiffel Tower by night, you have to pay for the rights (source, in French : "Ces éclairages sont considérés comme une création de forme originale et sont donc protégés par le droit d’auteur.") Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the court decision says: Category:Eiffel Tower at night. Yann (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which court decision are you talking about ? The text says there has never been a court. Also says "The Société d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SETE) states that the various illuminations of the tower are trademarked and claims that they are under copyright". Same than the blog linked above and written by lawyers. Read also the section The Eiffel Tower Copyright from the article Do Night Photos of the Eiffel Tower Violate Copyright ? : "The artistic lighting is not in the public domain". And in the section The Practical Side of Copyright Protection : "Having a copyright does not require that an artist enforce it. The rights can be used in any way the artist wishes." Never any court decision. But not a good idea to start to infringe. However, for this picture here nominated, I don't think these illuminations are protected like the Eiffel Tower -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:20180924 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck Men U23 ITT Callum Scotson 850 8281.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2019 at 13:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Granada (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A viable candidate, but it's hard to choose between all the images in the category; IMO only one of them can be FP and I'm not sure this is the best one. I'll look into it some more. Side note: there should be the rider's name as a category.--Peulle (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added category and corrected a typo in filename that the UCI introduced in their starting list at the road world championships in Innsbruck. —Granada (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I don't see why only one of these images could be FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I have the feeling that the picture is slightly leaning clockwise -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish the background hadn't been so dark, but when your goal is to take a picture of a bicyclist racing by that's more important. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Castle of Montresor 09.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2019 at 14:47:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice texture, and the sweeping entryway offsets the asymmetric and irregular form of the castle. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France

File:Moscow Elektrozavodskaya metro station asv2018-09.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2019 at 15:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Central hall of platform of Elektrozavodskaya metro station in Moscow -----all by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good to me, it's got WOW effect. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely framed. Charles (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Granada (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Henry39 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 18:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#Russia

File:Crystallisation of Sugarcane.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2019 at 02:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by Vespertunes - uploaded by Vespertunes - nominated by Vespertunes -- Moajjem Hossain 02:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moajjem Hossain 02:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Support A bit dark, but I like it. I changed the category to "Industry". Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of imperfections, but overall I like the dark, Stygian feel of this ... almost like you went back in time to take it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent scene, look like a Blade runner 2049 factory scene. --Photographer 00:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the mood! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good, but: Please remove the CAs at the windows. Light at windows is overexposed and sharpness could be better too. I love the scene, but at least the CAs should be removed. --XRay ^talk 09:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vespertunes: Please remove the CAs. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 10:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cannot understand what does it mean by CAs. Can you explain it, please? Thank you. -- Vespertunes Moajjem Hossain 12:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vespertunes, see Commons:Photography terms#Chromatic aberration. Also, please can you fix your signature (preferences) so that it automatically contains a link to your user page. -- Colin (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Removed CAs and improved lights. Thank you. -- Vespertunes Moajjem Hossain 01:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The contrast may be too great now. Your edits accentuated the blown light in the windows. Either way, this is quite a significant change, so you should probably ping (post the linked user name of) everyone who's voted. My feeling is, if you dial things back somewhat, you may reach a happy medium. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:20180512 - Serce Don Juana - Krakowski Teatr Uliczny Scena Kalejdoskop - 9121 DxO.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2019 at 07:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Actress of Scena Kalejdoskop Theatre during the show Don Juan's Heart. All by me -- Jakubhal 07:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 07:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! Yann (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Henry39 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blown highlights, but the facial expression is really striking -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The face! --Podzemnik (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Trees and clouds with a hole, Karawanks, Slovenia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2019 at 10:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info All by me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. The colors are perhaps a little on the warm side.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Famberhorst Hum true true, thanks for that. I've reduce the warmth a bit. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this hole in the sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think the top half of the image by itself would be even more compelling. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A heavenly mushroom! --Llez (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and 10... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.06.03.-13-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Vierfleck-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2019 at 16:40:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Four-spotted chaser - Libellula quadrimaculata, male

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive, but we know the photo is taken next to fishing ponds only because you tell us. I'm a little uncomfortable with the completely undifferentiated grey background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info It is not a blue lake. The background is the green/brown water mirroring the grey air/sky. --Hockei (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand, but there is no visual evidence of a background at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 17:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'd be great if you could insert the information about the background that you posted here directly to the image's description. At first, I was puzzled where the white coloured background is coming from. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.06.05.-09-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Grosse Koenigslibelle-Weibchen bei Eiablage.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2019 at 16:53:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What is the dragonfly doing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Laying eggs. --Hockei (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she might be. Thanks for adding the info to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question High quality tricky capture, but can you have a look at tone/colour balance please? Charles (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 17:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know whether or not that's a dust spot to the insect's upper right, since it seems motion-blurred, but it is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info No dust spot. There is something swimming in water in the not in focus locating background. --Hockei (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View from connors hill panorama.jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2019 at 10:16:42

Info Overexposed sky, invalid color balance, small resolution (Original nomination)
Delist -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist And GFDL 1.2 only. --Yann (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I don't think the resolution is so small, but I agree with your other points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist .--Peulle (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Looks bad at even thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 12:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suricatos (Suricata suricatta), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 29.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2019 at 22:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Group of young meerkats playing (Suricata suricatta), Makgadikgadi Pans National Park, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 22:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough quality (composition and technical) - even on Christmas day. Charles (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Charles, I took 200 pictures of this meerkats colony, which was in the middle of nowhere, uploaded 20 and chose this one because of its composition and sharpness. --Poc o² 11:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken dozens of meerkat images too, hence my comments, Diego! Charles (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although I normally defer to Charles on wildlife shots, I see this one as a well-composed (aimed) shot from some distance away, and it's sharp as well. I also like the fact that the one on the left is looking into the camera. It can't compete with BBC or the like, but I think it's one of the best of its kind on Commons. Please correct me if there are better such shots already here. --Peulle (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. Even at full size, the meerkats are pretty sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition --Photographer 02:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elefante africano de sabana (Loxodonta africana), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 37.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2019 at 11:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Young African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) "greeting" at the banks of the Chobe River, Chobe National Park, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the elephant's eye closed? And/or are those long eyelashes mostly blocking our view of the eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, background is sort of unusually dewy-looking. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the light is not very favorable to really highlight the subject. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, simple elephant, nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girton College, Cambridge, England, 1890s.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2019 at 14:14:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info Library of Congress scans have a lot of ambiguity as to colour balance - this is fairly well-known, unfortunately. As such, I balanced it against actual photos of the college. I think this is an excellent historical image, near enough to the time period of the college's founding to be meaningful, though, as a photochrom - a secondarily coloured black and white image - there's a tradeoff between the historic value and the inherent flaws of the medium, and there are certain inaccuracies that result. This is, however, by and large, excellently done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good. Is the writing on the lower right OK, or does that fall under the ban on watermarks and so forth? I hope it doesn't fall under that ban, but I'd like to know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: That's for modern additions; it's generally bad practice to remove things from hundred plus year artworks that have been part of them throughout, unless there's a good reason to do so. It's part of the historical artefact. In fact such things are explicitly permitted in Commons:Watermarks#What_are_not_watermarks Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm happy to support. I may have missed it, but I don't actually see this specific kind of case referenced in "What are not watermarks". It would be good to have somewhat more specificity in how old a photo has to be for captions or other writing on the photo to be OK under this site's guidelines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Yeah, there's a rather massive "etcetera" in there, which could be a lot more helpful. It does say "captions and signatures on historic plates" - which this is quite close to, a caption on a historic print that (by the very nature of the medium) only exists in print form. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Destructive color restoration. --Photographer 02:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vrucht (nap) van een beuk (Fagus sylvatica) (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2019 at 16:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Fagaceae.
Info Fungal covered fruit (nap) (of a beech) in decay, between fallen leaves. Close Up of a biotope consisting of fungi, fallen fruit of a beech and fallen beech leaf.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not doing it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not getting any 3D effect. Light direction or DoF perhaps. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:20180929 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck Women Elite Road Race Charlotte Becker 850 7872.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 20:22:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfectly sharp everywhere, but that's inevitable at speeds of 45km/h of the ladies passing by and trying to pan with just 1/250s. -- Granada (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, I have no complaints whatsoever about the sharpness of the cyclist, but the thing that looks like a blond mop on the hill overlapping her back is distracting to me. I'm not opposing, since this is still a great sports photo that could easily appear in any newspaper and would be better and of much higher resolution than most such photos, but I don't think I can support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've never noticed the blond hair of the woman standing in the background, but now I can't make it unseen anymore and it clearly disturbs the image.

I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granada (talk • contribs)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cisticola exilis - Cornwallis Rd.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 03:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise over Ben Vorlich and Loch Tay, Scotland.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 15:49:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
Info All by me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd like a slightly wider crop on the left to include the entire tree, but this is beautiful, and the hills and fog make it more than an ordinary sunrise. It's a pity that it's almost impossible to avoid contrails, nowadays, but that's a fact, it doesn't ruin the picture, and I don't really approve of the unrealistic deletion of contrails that's so routine at FPC. The contrails are part of a true record of what the world looks like in this period of history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pretty scene, but too many unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural colors --Photographer 05:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a bit too processed, but nice scene. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alright guys, thanks for the comments - I'll try again next time with less shaky tripod and less saturated colours. Have a good day, Podzemnik (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:NARA 111-CCV-372-CC33992 25th Infantry Division M48A3 Patton moving through Viet Cong territory Operation Lincoln 1966.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2019 at 15:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info uploaded by Kges1901 - nominated by Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kges1901 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. The composition is specially bad, as portrait format (opposed to landscape) is not appropriate here, and there is not enough room at left. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. The technical quality is only moderate (noisy+unsharp). Maybe this could be a candidate for VI but not FP. --Milseburg (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I basically agree with the others. I might vote differently if this were a very historically important picture, but I don't think it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2019 (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: it's unlikely to overcome these opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2019 (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.

I withdraw my nomination Kges1901 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pearl Winter White Russian Dwarf Hamster - Front.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 20:42:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by USER:Jpbarrass - uploaded by File Upload Bot - nominated by Szzuk (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Szzuk (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Small, loads of color noise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it's even visible without looking at the full size.--Peulle (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, no EXIF and there's an ugly yellow border all around -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2019 (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: Far to be at FP level, as per comments above. Please read Commons:Image guidelines. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2019 (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: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gartur Stitch Farm with trees along a paddock (B&W), Scotland 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 17:46:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_Kingdom
Info All by me. My first black & white photograph on Commons. I feel like black and white highlight the composition better than colour photograph. - Podzemnik (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support, noisy but it's not as problematic as it would be in a color image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This composition is not working for me. However, if you decided to include only the tall trees and cropped out all the houses to their right, I think that would work, though it would be a very different picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alright, let's withdraw this one. Thanks Ikan Kekek for the comment. I really liked the shape of the trees but I might have not approached it in the best way. I'll try again one day :) Have a good day, Podzemnik (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Women in Sari- Morang District Nepal-1598.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 15:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Other
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I guess the idea is to feature these saris, but this isn't a great composition to me. We see these women's backs, and what's in front of us isn't that interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the composition interesting; it's a sort of "walking away into the distance" moment. However, the quality is unimpressive. Looking at the arms, for instance, the detail is lost and there's colour bleeding where one thing melts into the other.--Peulle (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not striking enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination-Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 07:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altenfelden Rothirsch Cervus elaphus-2100.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 07:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created & uploaded by User:Isiwal - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although drenched and with grass in his antlers, this buck is magnificent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A quality shot. Charles (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I putted the image in my favorites as soon I saw it, yesterday. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good but a bit cold (WB) IMO. --Hockei (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Charles (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color temperature increased (by 300K) as repeatedly requested, contrast increased, brightnes slightly reduced. Thanks for reviews, comments and support.--Isiwal (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very masculine. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 14:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a rack! Shame about the background being a little washed out, but it looks like there was nothing you could do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 17:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow - Benh (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emma Smith DeVoe by James & Bushnell - No photographer stamp.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2019 at 17:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by James & Bushnell, Seattle; restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's probably worth mentioning here that the photographer's stamp was - at a guess - an actual stamp in this case. Hence it being placed in a location where the inclusion of it severely hurt the composition of the image. I don't like removing such things (hence why a with-stamp alternative exists) , but I think, for useability, this version is easily superior, and it's not so much of a loss as to justify keeping it. Oh, and Ikan Kekek? 3.75 x 5.5 in before crop. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cannot support removal of stamp. Charles (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: Honestly, I was pretty sure it was going to happen whatever I did, so I figured I may as well make sure it's done well, y'know? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support useful Ezarateesteban 21:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually think the photographer's stamp doesn't damage the composition, and it's beautiful, so I'd support that version as an alternate if you give it as one. But I'll support this one, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Think about it... We should not be altering a historical document. It will bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Charles (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Wikipedia all of a sudden? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The restoration is well documented so that shouldn't be a problem. We are not altering historical originals but merely providing additional, improved (i.e. restored) versions which users can freely choose among. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I'd be OK with the stamped version too. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Garsten Pfarrkirche Langhaus Joch 2 Kartusche Fresko.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 20:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epic. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support high quality. Charles (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 15:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 17:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not cutting the bottom to make it more balanced ? The red pipes on both sides are also really unpleasant -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Thanks for review. My intention was to show also a bit of the remarkable stucco border, but I have uploaded a new crop anyway. The red tubes are suspension and wiring for chandeliers as you can see in File:Garsten Pfarrkirche Hauptaltar Fastenzeit.jpg. I could not remove them because the holes in the ceiling are in a hight of approx. 20 m above floor. I have not had any ladder, no pliers and the parish priest was watching me ;-). --Isiwal (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improved, well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schaffhausen - Haus zum Ritter 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 13:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info These murals by Tobias Stimmer at the Haus zum Ritter, Schaffhausen, are renowned as the most important Renaissance frescoes north of the alps in Europe; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be cool to have the whole facade. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Here it is. --Llez (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whole facade? Go for it. Charles (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 15:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 17:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Vents du Sud - Le Grau-du-Roi 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 12:03:43 (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) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same ship and same day than this recently promoted image. But I think this one is better, and if the community is bored, we can do a "delist and replace", no problem. I only edited it two days ago, and at the time of the first nomination I did not think the last RAW file would give this result. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support another FP. And we don't need to delist the first nom. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain level please --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo were taken with a tripod and the built-in level of the camera set horizontally. There is likely nothing to fix. Furthermore riverbanks have not to be horizontal when they are taken in perspective (the far left it at 1.6km, the far right is a 2,1km), the true horizontal level is the line sky/landscape, and nothing shocks me in this line. Though I will not be surprised to see one or two of the habitual opposers take this opportunity. Long live democracy, have fun. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry A. Mottl, I think you can remove your oppose now. Charles (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Imo level is given by the coastline in the background --Isiwal (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm all for listing this one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and 10. To mention a downside of the image: the top of the grass which is covering a part of the boat looks a bit disturbing but maybe it would be even possible to clone it out. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 07:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 07:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure we need both pictures, but this one is FP anyway. --Yann (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blue-legged chameleon (Calumma crypticum) female Ranomafana.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2019 at 21:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Quite an uncommon species, endemic to a few forests in Madagascar. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. But could you please check the right bottom? It seems like there is a leftover of cutting something out or possibly content-aware filling. It's and area with a straight cut. It doesn't bother me not to support and it's only visible at 100 % view. But it'd still be nice not to have it there :) --Podzemnik (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks for spotting it. Sorted. Charles (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Flash could kill this animal. --Photographer 02:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What complete irresponsible nonsense Photographer. You have no idea what you are talking about. Charles (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An animal will not enjoy being lit up by a close bright light. Chameleons are mainly sensitive to light, which is used to change color. A powerful source of light could blind him momentarily, making him an easy target for other predators. --Photographer 03:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true. Chamelons use brain impulses to change colour, it is nothing to do with light shining on them. A flash would momentariy blind it, as it would with any animal (including humans) but the presence of a photographer will guarantee that there are no predators anywhere near. Please remove your oppose vote or justify it without misleading the community. You may have forgotten that you supported this nomination in 2015. A close-up photo of a reptile illuminated with flash. Charles (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, however, it is only circumstantial evidence. Please, do not take this personally, let's hope that some documented evidence can be presented. BTW [1] --Photographer 00:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do take it personally. Very personally. For you Photographer to accuse me of threatening the life of an endangered animal is libel and should be subject to sanctions. I seek support from other contributors on the talk page. As for your assertion of circumstantial evidence on colour change, I refer you to Glaw and Vences, the key reference is most chameleon articles. They write that changes in colour result from the chameleon's "hormonal and emotional state". There are 148 photographs of chameleons in the 3rd edition of their book. About 138 are taken using close-up flash. Charles (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support this nomination, but is the remark immediately above accurate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's just annoying ignorance. Charles (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment I consider a lack of respect towards my vote, for the moment, I will ignore any nomination on your part until some apology is made, I ask you to do the same with my nominations. --Photographer 00:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apology? You must be joking. You libelled me, not the other way around. Charles (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks bored out of its gourd. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Daniel, but I had to visit Google to find out what you are talking about! Charles (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ethics concerns with flash usage. Better to err on the side of caution with these things. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote above Jon Kolbert referencing Glaw and Vences, THE Madagascar reptile experts. There are 148 photographs of chameleons in the 3rd edition of their definitive book. About 138 are taken using close-up flash. I think it is unwise to question their ethics. Better to err on the side of objectivity with these things. Charles (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't know much about the ethics of wildlife photography so I'll not comment this any further but I just think that the flash light is too harsh from an aesthetical point of view. --Code (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pingualuit aerial 2007.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 10:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by NASA / Denis Sarrazin, uploaded by Tillman, nominated by Yann (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perfect circular shape of the crater and lake is stricking. -- Yann (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's a nice motif, but the technical quality is really crappy. The chroma noise is off the hook and the level of detail makes me think this was taken by some local guy with a drone rather than the biggest space exploration association in the world.--Peulle (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: Why so much hyperbole? Yann (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was. But jokes aside - honestly, I don't want to appear insulting, but why did you even nominate this one? I really can't see how this belongs here. Do you honestly and objectively believe this is an FP in 2019? --Peulle (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yann the NASA page says the image was "from an airplane on October 12, 2007" and the EXIF says it was a Canon EOS 30D that took it. The EXIF doesn't indicate this is a stitched image so I think the NASA webpage has upsized the 8.2MP image to 24MP. It should really be 3504 × 2336. I would probably support this, but reluctant to support an upsized JPG. -- Colin (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Peulle, you meant to say "off the scale". I don't think anybody had blamed the chroma noise for anything. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments. Yann (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interior of the Castle of Montrésor 10.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2019 at 14:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not so bad but the lighting looks a bit unpleasant. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the other FPC. Hard light. Too sharp/contrasty. -- Colin (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the composition. The light is warm but IMO not too bad, except on the table, especially its left side, where the rug looks downright ruined. I'd be likely to support if you dial back the highlights enough for that rug to look reasonable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like the other one, I feel bad about opposing because this one is just trying so hard. But ... Colin is right about the effect of the harsher lighting, and despite a more natural space for it it's still a very busy, very ambitious composition that nevertheless leaves a few awkward crops. Not as bad in that department as the other one, but still impossible to look past. And I also wonder what, exactly, is going on the upper left. It seems there's some light source just outside the frame that's casting some glare into it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echternach Christus Torso.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 12:34:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by Palauenc05 --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The odd floating effect of this photo may be growing on me. The larger composition which is a VI is more harmonious, though, so if you're considering retaking that with more sharpness, that would also be a possible FP nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Basile Morin The message of this image is that crucified Jesus has been tormented a second time in World War II. Hence, it is special for me, of course you may have a different opinion. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religions are not really my cup of tea, but I'm only talking photography here -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The shadow is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Palauenc05 (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bolivia 12.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2019 at 12:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 12:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If I remember correctly, User:A.Savin's photos of Dallol were sharper than this, but I think this is good enough, overall, to merit a feature. However, I'd request a more meaningful filename and, if possible, geographic coordinates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 17:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Freezing rain in Quebec city 12.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2019 at 17:39:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info Freezing rain in Quebec city. All by -- Photographer 17:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking over the image with my magnifying glass (drawing rectangles with IrfanView at 100%) I see quite a number of buildings with significant tilt. I know lamp posts are notorious for not being vertically true, but all the nearby ones are tilted. The very furthest left building has a noticeable tilt if you look at the corner edge. On the right, the factory/port (?) building towers are leaning. The spikes on the central tower appear very slightly leaning. There are lots of other examples if you try to find such edges. So I think you need to add many more vertical control points. I won't oppose, even with these errors, as the light is lovely and composition very good. It is a shame about the scaffolding and white sheeting, though I suppose they could have used blue sheeting which would be worse. Shame there is nobody on the nearby seats enjoying the view with us. Do we have a similar FP or past candidate? It looks familiar? -- Colin ( talk) 18:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin as usual, your comments are very accurate. I had noticed that vertical problem, however, sometimes I do not know if these houses, because they are 1600-1700, are somewhat deformed. Anyway, I have corrected based on your comments (however, there should be a way to not correct anything at hand, that way it could be a representation of reality without alteration). This year at WLM Canada, my winning photo is similar to this, it is possibly the most beautiful view of Quebec that can be accessed without a car. There are things that I miss from Latin America such as garbage and imperfections, poor people in the street and general decadence that does not exist here. Please, take a look and tell me if it is ok. Thanks --Photographer 23:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I notice that you call a whole bunch of photos "freezing rain in Quebec", and I commented about that in QIC. Could you please change your filenames to something more meaningful? Is there really freezing rain in this picture? Nice photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ikan Kekek thanks for the note, in the future I will use more specific names for the files --Photographer 23:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tozina
Oppose Colin has a good argument against it being an FP at this time, although I can't really see much tilt, if any (I didn't look as closely, and I may have done so after the corrected image was uploaded). But it's still rather noisy. Support now Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case noise now is gone --Photographer 16:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it's even better! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, fine after rework. --Isiwal (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, looks like a painting. Nice composition and colors. Especially the curved wall in the foreground really works as compositional element. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Interior of the Castle of Montrésor 08.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2019 at 20:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not remarkable enough for FP. And you've seriously over processed this. It has an artificial look, like someone cut images out of a magazine and stuck them into the photo. The harsh light doesn't help, but it just looks unreal. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not as bothered by the look, which while it does seem rather, uh, refined (with two light sources, was a half-second exposure really so necessary? But you do you ...) is at least borderline natural (to me).
But ... it's just such a busy, overstuffed composition, leaving so many awkward crops. I wonder if something just in the center would have solved both issues. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mainz 50 Pfg 1921.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2019 at 16:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info All by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, beautiful money. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina
Support Looks appropriately Christmasey. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds of bad times. --Isiwal (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Vihorlat (v zime) 005.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2019 at 20:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture, but I'm sorry, it doesn't feel like an FP composition to me. I think the issue is that I don't perceive any framing on the left and right. I do like the branches being in front. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition doesn't impress, not when we have so many other pictures of forests in winter under blue skies, and even if it did the contrast is not well handled, as the snow on the trees near the top is seriously blown. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018 FIM Ice Speedway Gladiators World Championship - GP 7 Bart Schaap-5563.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 09:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created & uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great picture. I'm unfamiliar with this sport, so I looked it up on YouTube to confirm that this man has not in fact had an accident. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this is speedway and the athletes really are leaning this much, thanks to the very high speed and extreme centrifugal forces. The huge spikes in the tires give enough grip to make this lean possible. The fact that the rider is also moving through a curve at very high speed means the subject is difficult to capture, but it has succeeded here.--Peulle (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Granada (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 20:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy, but that was inevitable with the ISO necessary to capture this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive action, great capture -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding action shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Trougnouf (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Enceladus southern hemi tectonics.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 07:48:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute - uploaded by Huntster - nominated by The NMI User -- The NMI User (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - File:Enceladusstripes cassini.jpg, the VI for this moon, is bigger and better, so I'm not sure about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low resolution; the image was shot over ten years ago and technology has moved on since then. Also there are jagged edges around the left edges.--Peulle (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Trougnouf (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kandalaksha Bay.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2019 at 10:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Islands of Kandalaksha Nature Reserve in the White Sea after the sunset. Created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmitry A. Mottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. A bit soft, but that feels appropriate for twilight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit soft but the composition, subject and the atmosphere makes up for it.--Podzemnik (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light but agree it is soft and the pylon spoils the view. This appears to be a big enough park that other views are possible. -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 18:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin --Milseburg (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Trougnouf (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:King penguin Aptenodytes patagonicus-4932.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 08:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created & uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow.--Ermell (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the definition is lacking and I wonder if that is as a result of NR needed because of the high ISO used? Should be able to get a better background in a zoo. Charles (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be happy to test my denoising program here if you send me a version of this image that's had the same processing done but no denoising or sharpening (which must be done after denoising) --Trougnouf (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks for comments. This image was taken inside of the socalled Polarium (a hall with cooling and air filter system) through the protective glass under low light condition, therefore high ISO and NR to the max in LR. Background in every direction is a concrete wall, no way to choose a better one. --Isiwal (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 20:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Trougnouf (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Snowy trees on the GR-16 between Membre and Vresse-sur-Semois (DSCF4800).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 11:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition. Charles (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like this photo, with the beautiful filigree of snowy twigs and the road helping direct the eyes toward the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think it is snow, it looks more like hoarfrost; But nevertheless pro! --Llez (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you! ~~I can't tell whether that would be rime or hoar frost, do you think they are differentiable here based on the picture(s) and weather history?~~ (it was -5 to 0C at night and -3 to 3 during the day, I only observed this phenomenon on the 1st and 4th day out of 5, 1st pictured here was the sunniest and 4th the foggiest, everything was very wet and typically frozen / downright flooded on the 4th but every little area seemed to have its own weather) --Trougnouf (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I changed the description to rime, per User:Bubblenymph that would be the one because hoar frost requires dry air which isn't found in Belgium --Trougnouf (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A scene straight out of a fairy tale Subhrajyoti07 talk 05:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Harlock81 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A circular shape created using light painting.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2019 at 15:25:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info - A led light source hung from a piece of string from the ceiling has been rotated and the free wheeling motion of the same captured in a single long exposure shot.
All by -- Subhrajyoti07 talk 15:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Subhrajyoti07 talk 15:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's more of a graphic than a photography. Very interesting but no FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good abstract composition. If this is not the kind of file that should be on Commons, I think that needs to be clarified. As long as it's within the scope of Commons, I think files like this should be judged to be FPs when they're particularly excellent. Of course we can disagree on how good each one is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Best light painting combines the light with the land. This is just a bit too little of interest for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk)
Support Very intersting scrolling up and down in full resolution: a moving piture --Llez (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ close to neutral, but in addition to not finding the subject extremely interesting, ~~I don't like the framing of this abstraction with too large borders left and right~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Recropped the image to reduce the left and right dark borders. - Subhrajyoti07 talk 19:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You should now ping everyone who's voted in this thread. Except me. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral now -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Easter Island 13.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 14:03:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 14:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Really striking scene. I think you could improve this photo a lot by cropping out the unsharp parts on the right. I will insert a note with a suggested crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to see this image without the people. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The motif is outstanding but the technic isn´t, because of the mentioned unsharp parts. I hav no problem with the people. --Milseburg (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New version uploaded. —kallerna™ 06:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks. I certainly like it better, but I'm continuing to live with it and haven't decided pro or con on FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm now thinking that cropping just a bit further left, to eliminate the top part of that one rock, would look better. However, since no-one else has been talking much about this photo, I could understand if you don't do anything more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. Beautiful scenery and great colors, but unfortunately a 16 MP landscape does need to be pixel-sharp these days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vihorlat (v zime) 018.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2019 at 13:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI for sure but just doesn't stand out from other pictures we have of scrubby montane woodlands in heavy snow under a cobalt blue sky. Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I agree with Daniel. This picture is quite good and interesting, but the form is fine but not outstanding to me. This same picture with a few clouds might have earned a supporting vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not extraordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca fascicularis holding a plant stem and looking at viewer in Laos.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2019 at 04:11:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_Monkeys)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. How close did you have to get to the monkey to take that photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About 1.0 - 1.5 m -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a little dangerous? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it accepted a bottle of water in the hand, but carefully I stayed at a reasonable distance -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Basile, could you please elaborate on the monkey accepting a water bottle? Did you bait the animal? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this species you don't really need to bait for them coming to you :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shallow DOF is really appropriate here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful Subhrajyoti07 talk 05:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_Monkeys)

File:Altenfelden Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra-2076.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2019 at 09:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created & uploaded by User:Isiwal - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just love this chamois and his calm, relaxed pose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pose and expression are great. --Aristeas (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The chamois is posing like a pro. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Klasse! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Podzemnik. Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I passed this by thinking there was shadow on the face from the horns! It's very nice. Charles (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has racing stripes left and right of the nose :-) as you can see in File:Altenfelden Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra-2074.jpg --Isiwal (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can see why I was confused! Charles (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 05:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pskov asv07-2018 Kremlin aerial1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2019 at 09:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Russia
Info Aerial view of Pskov Krom (or Kremlin), the core citadel of Pskov ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 09:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive, beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good as we're going to get from a drone at present. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 05:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Russia

File:2017.06.03.-23-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Signalkrebs.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 13:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Signal crayfish - Pacifastacus leniusculus

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, light overly harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel: I've reduced the light. --Hockei (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info It was not possible to take this picture without using flash. The place was very dark where hardly any sunlight came through. And besides, the crayfish was on the run (in motion). Aside from that, it was a very rare opportunity to photograph this animal. I never saw it before. --Hockei (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This great capture could be FP, but not by FPC custom and practice. Rarity is not considered unfortunately. Charles (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it's considered somewhat, but crawfish aren't rare. Maybe this particular type is rare, but does it look so different from other crawfish? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info To take the photo was a very rare opportunity, not the crawfish itself. It's introduced from America and in Germany (Europe) very invasive. --Hockei (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel although I understand Hockei's arguments. BTW, if the species is invasive, soon it won't be so rare to shoot it in Germany --Basotxerri (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I just don't find this outstanding, compared to other FP animal pictures. There are few photos of this species of crawfish on Commons, but that doesn't seem to be from rarity, as the species is described as "Least Concern" at w:Signal crayfish. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--Hockei (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duke of Wellington Photo cleaned.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 15:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1800-1850
Info You wouldn't think there is actually a photograph of the victor of the battle of Waterloo, would you? Yes, I know the quality is pretty crummy compared to modern images, but this daguerreotype is actually a photograph of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, taken as early as 1844. When this was taken, telephones and cars did not exist, California was still part of Mexico, Italy and Germany were still not countries proper and dynamite had not yet been invented. That's enough wow factor for me.

And Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica, either. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Antoine Claudet, uploaded by Hohum and nominated by Peulle just because it exists, which is almost miraculous in itself.-- Peulle (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that better versions are available... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here it is: File:Portrait of the Duke of Wellington, 1844.jpg. This is certainly FP worthy, after some restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would support if we had a high resolution copy, but at 0.76 Megapixel, no. There is a 1004 × 1390 version here. Yann (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How bizarre. That Alamy image you link to is simply a slight upscale of the image after I'd cleaned up the face, not the original version. Hohum (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. Martin, thanks for checking into that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It not look cleaned --Photographer 01:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for finding those higher resolutions off-site. :) --Peulle (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue-legged chameleon (Calumma crypticum) male Ranomafana.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2019 at 22:01:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A fine shot, but for me too similar to the other one, the nomination of which is succeeding.--Peulle (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Different enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Peulle. Yann (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's unfair Peulle ~~and Yann~~. This is a male and the other is a female. Charles (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to your other picture, this one is IMO inferior: a bit too tight, and the background branch is distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Similar to the previous one but this one is a male, that's distinctive enough for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one than the other (for which I'm neutral, because the tail is less visible). But IMO the best of all is definitely that one recently promoted with the beautiful green leaves -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Me too, it's the first one I nominated. Charles (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saslonch Sella Pic Seceda inviern.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2019 at 21:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, great view! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great view indeed but the house is leaning, indicating a ccw tilt.--Peulle (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I fixed the vertical lines. Thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now.--Peulle (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really like the part on the right side where you can watch the trees gradually disappearing as the elevation keeps growing. --Podzemnik (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I walked this path last year --Llez (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support shame about the ski poles and gloves. Charles (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why? I could easily erase them --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Someone following the route would be fine, but these appear to be ski poles and gloves left there while the photo is taken. Charles (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Right! The photo has been taken by a human, not a robot or a drone ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope you don't, they're one of my favorite feature in the image. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. The noise in the sky is a bit bothersome but given the resolution that's really pixel peeping. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golfo di Palermo Villa Igiea.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 12:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very interesting view. I don't like the right crop, though, because I feel like, if you're going to show the crane, really show it without cropping it. What would it look like if you add some more to the right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the comment --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see what you did - cropped out the crane. That's fine, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slightly greenish color cast evident on the clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine --Isiwal (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Daniel. The whole image is yellowish in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Corrected WB. @Daniel Case: , @Basile Morin: Thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. And the resolution has increased also :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry I don't see the appeal in a resort pool area and the lighting isn't that good. The ruin is nice but it's far from being a prominent feature. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trougnouf – Lucas ^T 22:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bride and groom at Sri Senpaga Vinayagar temple.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 01:11:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Random shoot resulting in a composition not balanced, motion blur in the man, some estrange on the superior part of the woman head because background distracting. Sorry --Photographer 01:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the bride is sharper than the groom at full size, due to the focus (interior shot). However, this is a high resolution image and at 4000 pixels high, both are sharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lack of sharpness, disturbing people in the background. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the background so much, but ... there's an awful lot of posterization on the flowers and clothing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.03.-16-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Blaue Federlibelle-Paarungsrad.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 13:19:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little heavy on the sharpening, though. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good focus, cool heart shaped ♥ -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 05:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Breil-Brigels. (actm) 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 16:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural #Switserland.
Info Lag da Breil. Reservoir with a low water level at that time.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A combination of documentation and very good composition. Without the explanation, I might react just a bit differently to the mud in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support I agree with Ikan about the composition but ... I think you could do something about both the noise in the sky and the highlights on the clouds. Perhaps the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2018 STM Austria Skibob Hochficht DERFLINGER Clemens-2143.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 09:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's really excellent! You and Granada take very impressive action photos of sports. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some compression problems on the helmet but high wow factor compensates.--Peulle (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The gate is kind of distracting although I do realize it plays an important role here and is relevant to what is depicted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cannot have a race pic without the gate. Charles (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: That's what I said, in so many words. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine, what Charles (and I) think is that a prop that's central to the subject can't be thereby distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Granada (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 05:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Altenkunstadt Mariä Geburt 252031.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 09:35:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 05:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice rising composition and mood – Lucas ^T 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Man's tailcoat 1825-1830.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 10:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Los Angeles County Museum of Art, uploaded by PKM, nominated by Yann (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have many FP of clothing, and this is excellent, both for the image quality and the description. -- Yann (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:TianqiZhe.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 14:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I nominate this picture because look at the design of the Tianqi Emperor’s robes. You can see dragons, birds, and what I assume to be clouds. It also has many flowers and dragons.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Other
Info created by HuangdiOfSongChina - uploaded by HuangdiOfSongChina - nominated by HuangdiOfSongChina -- HuangdiOfSongChina (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HuangdiOfSongChina (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need horizontal perspective fix --Photographer 23:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Sahand Ace 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Castle of Fougeres-sur-Bievre 14.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 22:28:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberration and distracting element. See note --Photographer 01:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see only minimal CA at the thing in the sky on the left upper side. Remove this. -- -donald- (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting doesn't work for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting and cylindrical projection. It is possible the Panini projection (Hugin), also known as Vedutismo projection (PtGui) would work as it keeps diagonal lines from the vanishing point straight. Please ensure you save your image with an embedded colour profile (missing here). -- Colin (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While lighting could have been better, and regardless of the outcome of this FPC some highlight suppression on the lower walls at center would be beneficial, I've seen worse get promoted here. However, the projection is a dealbreaker for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Changing the Guard ceremony in Québec during the summer 10.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 05:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)
Info All by -- Photographer 05:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a downright interesting picture, and also (unintentionally on their part?) funny. I don't know how the men see with their caps pulled down over their eyes, and it's funny to see a fluffy goat with long horns with a kind of uniform draped over his back. The composition is good and refreshingly spacious. It's a pity that the Quebec flag in the distance is cut on the upper left, but that's no big deal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The humor Ikan notes would be better conveyed by a crop to just that part. Otherwise, as a whole, it looks like a very well-done tourist shot—very static, with the Quebec motto blocked out in part and, as noted, the Quebec flag cut. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't find this interesting. These guys are just... ridiculous. Well, in short, no wow. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy/unorganized composition for an FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can these guys see anything further than 2 meters from them? :-) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas ^T 22:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks guys for the feedback, especially the negative votes and I think this picture was not clear enough FP. This is an event done once a year, maybe next year you'll have more luck --Photographer 02:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It's a pity. I like it more than other candidates :-) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.05.17.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege-Mannheim--Zilpzalp.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 14:17:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Didn't look impressive as a thumbnail, but I like it at full size. Do pixel-peep this one. :-) Also, this file is fairly small, but this bird is also very small, 10–12 centimetres according to w:Common chiffchaff, so full size at almost 4 MP is big enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The size of my bird is not smaller than the bird in this picture but has better DOF. It's a mistake only to count the pixel of the file and not to notice the size of the subject. --Hockei (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Isn't that what I said? I was giving an argument for your picture, not against it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it might work better with the plant at right cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info According Daniel's suggestion stem on the right cropped out. If not better or even worse I'll set it back to the former version. --Hockei (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like it better this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beinn an Dothaidh in morning sun, Scotland.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 20:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
Info All by me. On of my recent captures of the morning sun over the Scottish Highlands. At this time of the year, the sun doesn't really go much higher than this. Straightening the horizon was a bit tricky as there are multiple cloud layers and geological features, but I did my best. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mars?--Ermell (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great spot and great photograph! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 06:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Madagascar magpie-robin (Copsychus albospecularis pica) female.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 17:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Charles, have you double-checked the geodata? Right now it points to a spot in the middle of nowhere, but the branch the bird is sitting on looks like it's been cut with a saw. Thanks, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Frank, Montagne d’Ambre National Park. Definitely the middle of nowhere. Cut tree which would have fallen across the path. Geodata shows forest, not exact location. Charles (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent. With such closeups, I sometimes wonder if the birds know they're being watched. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this particular forest, the birds seem more tame than usual. I was able to move and get this second sideways-on shot ( this image is the first one) ten seconds apart. The bird moved on the log, but didn't fly off. Charles (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I only wish the branch wasn't cut by saw, it kind of spoils the wilderness vibes. But overall it's a great capture. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the very early days of photography, Julius Caesar thought it was OK: Veni, Vidi, Vici. I came, I saw, I conquered. --Charles (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Aasish Shah (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ooorah! ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nevelzwam ( nebularis) (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 16:16:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi #Nebularis.
Info A photo of a simple mushroom in its natural biotope. I personally like the subdued earthy natural colors and the special shape of the hat.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grows on you at full-size. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very illustrative and maybe VI, however, just not wow to me --Photographer 05:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer --Trougnouf (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. I think the relative lack of contrast that's a normal part of this mushroom's environment is part of what's detracting from my ability to feel wowed. Not your fault at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Castle of Montal 11.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 22:43:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, I don't think a cylindrical projection works for architecture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. You are too close. Light is not great. Technical quality poor compared to many FP castles. -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not as skilled as those who opposed before me. For me the quality is good, the light well handled, colors natural, composition good (I like that the tree is not disturbing). --Podzemnik (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and King. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dito. --Rettinghaus (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 10:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cascarudo.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 05:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category:Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Scarabaeidae_(Scarab_Beetles)
Info created by Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by Fedaro -- 05:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --fedaro (⧼Fedarolinktext⧽) --fedaro (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't compare well with other FPs. Harsh light and shadows. A lot of it is not in focus. Rather doubtful of species identification for category considering the filename simply means "beetle". -- Colin (talk)
Oppose per Colin. The DoF is too shallow.--Peulle (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nürnberg Heilig-Geist-Spital 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 07:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
Info Heilig-Geist-Spital (Hospital of the Holy Spirit) in Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light, very high detail quality by using stitching technique. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). (d.j.b.) 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 18:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #The Netherlands
Info Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). Stormy wind and heavy rain showers above Langweerderwielen.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very beautiful, but for me the composition is a little unbalanced (too much visual weight on the bottom). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice scene and lighting but similar to King the composition with the the tree in dead center feels strange to me – Lucas ^T 13:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Composition isn't working. Also quite titled. -- Colin (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Souimanga sunbird (Cinnyris sovimanga apolis) female.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 21:47:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The twig in the background which is “growing” out of its head is too distracting for me. The cropping is also quite deep for my taste, but I understand the need for it with birds. – Lucas ^T 22:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination She's not going to fly. --Charles (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Columbia Parliament Building in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 07.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 16:38:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
Info All by me. It's British Columbia Parliament Building in Victoria, BC, Canada. -- Podzemnik (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice blue hour. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilt and need verticals fix, incomplet EXIF information and small for the source camera sensor --Photographer 02:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Photographer Thanks for the vote. I uploaded a new version with all metadata. I leveled it out a tiny bit, it's probably better. It's tricky though. The stone that the building is made out of is quite rough and I had troubles to make everything looking straight in other photos of the parliament, too. I believe it's straight enough - as soon as I find something leaning slightly left, straight afterwards I'd find something else leaning right. My camera has 20.2 megapixels, the image has 9.4. Roughly half is not too bad I think considering heavy perspective fix and a crop. I couldn't go any further and use a different lens because there is a parking lot with cars, plants and a water fountain that would block the view. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK now, thanks for the feedback --Photographer 00:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rettinghaus (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olympe and Flore Chauveau by Theophile Hamel, 1851-1852.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2019 at 02:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Portrait
Info created by Théophile Hamel - photographed, uploaded and nominated by Photographer 02:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high detail. There is some inconsistency in sharpness at the pixel level, but the resolution is so high that, viewed at any normal size, the flaws are invisible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid.--Peulle (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality. Charles (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed. --Isiwal (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps more detailed than the artist would have liked ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice painting and quality ok at normal size (6000 px large), but not at full resolution, clearly unsharp unfortunately. Not sure this was shot with a tripod (very wide aperture and ISO 500) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a shoot without tripod because I need a permission to use it. Thanks for your review --Photographer 02:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hydatina physis 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2019 at 11:04:37 (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) 11:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this beautiful shell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. The animal itself is quite interesting. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magistral how always --Photographer 02:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 14:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Porta westfalica inauguration dinner 1896 (3).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 12:26:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info reproduced, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dark heavy frame of the background needs to be cropped -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frame cropped. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit better, but I would suggest to remove completely this background, which is not part of the document, exactly like the other versions linked on the file page, and the similar historical works in the same category. Sorry if my comment was not clear, here's the cropped version I had in mind, and that you can use if you like. I think the aspect is more natural like that, and adapted to any background color. Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for reviewing, however I prefer the version as it is now. IMO the small frame is important to clearly recognize the original rim of the document, so that it cannot be the detail of a larger paper. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of this border is it is confusing with the other heavy lines integrated in the document. It is redundant and gives the feeling of belonging to the artwork. The rim is perfectly identifiable without the frame, more natural and much more aesthetic also -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 14:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Tsuglag Gyatso, the Third Pawo Rinpoche (c. 1567-1630) - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2019 at 06:47:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by unknown artist / Google Art Project, uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support I like the colors, and the high level of details. -- Yann (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard borders against the black frame, I would soften it a bit (2-3 px transition), but the picture itself is OK --Llez (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 14:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abfertigen einer Meldung durch Brieftauben - CH-BAR - 3240471 - restoration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 17:53:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Unknown photographer - provided by the Swiss Federal Archives - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Original size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in the description. 13x18cm, or 5x7 in. One of the standard sizes of the time, I believe. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Honestly, I only realised it was there after I went to the Swiss Archives link to look for it (before you posted asking - I know it's going to be asked, so I try to find out before hand), came back to add it... and saw it was already there. Probably should have mentioned it on here, but thought it was just me who'd miss that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some details lost forever because the overexposition. Please see a fast developed example, just for the purpose of showing the loss of details only without suggesting in any way that it is the final correct exposure. File:Abfertigen einer Meldung durch Brieftauben - CH-BAR - 3240471 - restoration comparison.jpg--Photographer 05:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Withdraw While I figure out why GIMP wasn't getting those colours. I really hate weird TIFF formats... Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gimp is my favorite free software to apply any change over a image jpg, however, Gimp is not a good develop software of RAW pictures like TIFF, .NEF... However, there are camera raw or DarkTable where you could get more visual information from a RAW file, in this case a TIFF. --Photographer 23:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Noordhoek, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-23, DD 127-133 PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 18:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Panoramic view of Noorhoek, a suburb of Cape Town with a population of ca. 32.000, South Africa. All by me, Poc o² 18:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder when we'll see the day when this kind of resolution will be standard for our smartphones. Anyway, there is a lot of interesting things to look at, the ocean releases the pressure of the left side loaded with buildings... and I just like it. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really enjoy this. I love that the moon is in the picture, and I also love the houses with curvy dark roofs, one on the near left and the other on the near right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support God, that was a great day to be photographing in the Cape Town area ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Impressive scene, but the large areas of black on the left and right are distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just panorama of landscape, nothing special. -- Karelj (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj, the lighting on the street in the extreme right is nice, where the rest is very flat and uniform, so overall not visually appealing enough for me. – Lucas ^T 22:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Suricatos (Suricata suricatta), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 26.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 18:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Meerkats (Suricata suricatta) on altert in Makgadikgadi Pans National Park, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 18:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so sharp and lighting not helping. Charles (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness is fine, two subjects are harder than one. I think this is as close to optimal focus and DOF (aperture) as you can get. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so wowed by this one, sorry. The other one was better.--Peulle (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support UnitedPowers^talk 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Exploding E match collage.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2019 at 22:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me. E-matches are used all over the world to ignite fireworks and similar pyrotechnic charges. Usually they are buried deep inside and controlled from far away. This image shows an untouched one on the left, in the moment of ignition in center and lastly one after ignition, revealing the insides. – Lucas ^T 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's quite interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting indeed. --Granada (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought an e-match was what you use to light an e-cigarette . Striking (ahem) and valuable image. Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rettinghaus (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 06:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Exterior of the Château Frontenac and Terrasse Dufferin.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 02:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Canada
Info All by -- Photographer 02:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but think you could restitch it with a rectilinear projection instead? Otherwise the planks at the bottom left are curved, which looks weird, and the building itself is slightly bulging. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King of The original images are on a damaged hard drive with hundreds of my RAW images, however, I'm trying to repair it with youtube videos. Making this panoramic was a challenge technically speaking, I remember that people do not stop moving, however, I wanted to represent what it feels like to be there. --Photographer 02:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per King. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myzomela sanguinolenta 1 - Windsor Downs Nature Reserve.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 03:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, tail is too blurry. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eyes are sharp, nice composition and nice blurred background. It looks really good to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basotxerri. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Sahand Ace 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support UnitedPowers^talk 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pitta versicolor - Kembla Heights.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 03:03:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not sure I love the background, but I have to support because of the quality of the shot of the bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Photographer 04:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bottom third of the bird is very grainy. Charles (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's bird prone to sit in the leaf litter of dense forests rather than on a stick somewhere in the sun - high ISOs and low shutter speeds are a practical necessity. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Sure, it's just that you're going to stuggle with FPC with that lens and ISO and F number. And 600mm in a dense forest? Charles (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you didn't downsize, JJ. Please ignore the pixel peeping you get as a consequence. -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel peeping was not needed. Charles (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subhrajyoti07 talk 05:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite remarkable given the shooting conditions required ISO 3200 at f/4 and this was shot at 1/100s on a 600mm lens. (equipment & technique envy) -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, but the crop around the head is a bit tight though. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Sahand Ace 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnitedPowers^talk 13:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amber mountain rock thrush (Monticola sharpei erythronotus) male 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 10:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Considered a separate species (Monticola erythronotus) by some authorities. Endangered. Less than 5000 individuals remain in a forest area of less than 10,000 hectares. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! I found there a small thing though that probably shouldn't be there (not sure, maybe it's a lost piece of feather :). Maybe you could clone it out? See the note. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit of attached feather. Normally they brush their hair before coming into the studio! Probably best to leave it in... --Charles (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! --Yann (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Isiwal (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful--Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light would seem as harsh as it is on the log if the bird were light-colored. But it isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Golden hour always makes colors explosive -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Sahand Ace 20:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support UnitedPowers^talk 13:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Terrace Farming in Nepal in Rakathum VDC-0373.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 12:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All seems a bit soft - possibly due to lens? --Charles (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is not very good.--Peulle (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy for any one element to stand out as the subject ... feels like a random assortment of land textures. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vltava river in Prague.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 13:56:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Amazing Vltava river in Prague. created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmitry A. Mottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very lovely. I have a question: Did you downsize the image? - and a remark: The buildings on the right side are leaning to the right. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown areas on the clouds, some very overexposed areas on the river, and really this image doesn't stand out to me from other Praguescapes. Probably not the best time of day to have been shooting in this direction. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2160528 Strauß Franz-5655.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 14:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created & uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Exciting! Isiwal, did the water get on your lens, or is this a zoomed shot or something? However you did it, it looks like you're right on top of the kayak racer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was sitting between the rocks of the bank reinforcement, almost at the level of the canoeist and have taken the shot with a 150-600mm zoom lens, focal length 600mm, freehand, distance 56 m (acc. to EXIF of RAW-file)--Isiwal (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and nice spray. Charles (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard not to support. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent!--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
provisional support provided the categories are fixed.--Peulle (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but note Peulle's comment re. categories. -- KTC (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I have also added it to more categories. Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 02:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A truly featured picture! Isiwal knows to photograph sports. --Granada (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Biser Todorov (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Amazing photo... Well done![reply]
Support Nice capture -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support UnitedPowers^talk 13:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Alp Dado Sura boven Breil-Brigels (d.j.b.) 08.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 16:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Switzerland .
Info As for me personally. I like the lines from the left to the right in this picture nicely.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful colors, but too much empty sky on the top right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for an even more aggressive crop (i.e. the top edge should touch the cloud in the center). What I really like about this image is that at its heart it's just a simple interplay of colors: green in the foreground, yellow/brown in the middle ground, and blue in the background. I think it would really help if the amount of blue were roughly the same as the amount of green, and right now the composition still feels unbalanced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nothing really interesting about this but I won’t oppose it. -- HuangdiOfSongChina (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - So many great Alpine pictures have been nominated here, and doubtless, quite a large number remain. I don't think this is one of them. I think that there's too much grass in the foreground and too much blue sky in the upper right. The result is that to my mind, the picture is merely good, not exceptional in either composition or scenery. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. The colours are nice but quite common in this scenery. Not enough wow for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I miss a tree somewhere, or something special -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others opponents. --Karelj (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image has been growing on me. I like how different layers go left / uphill: first grass and then different layers of the ridges. Also, the colours are lovely. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kharkiv River and Kharkivska Embankment - View from Kharkiv Bridge.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 14:06:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by me. -- Lystopad (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author.-- Lystopad (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture, but to my mind, not interesting enough for FP, as there's too much relatively empty water with unspectacular reflections in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just a normal city scene, nothing special. The light is ordinary. --Peulle (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippe Chaperon - Rigoletto.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 04:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, more paintings.--Peulle (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - where is the original? - more paintings --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's at the en:Bibliotheque Nationale de France, presuming I spelt that correctly. They were given a lot of the records of the opera houses in Paris. This one was not particularly well-preserved, though, hence the need for a restoration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rettinghaus (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong scene. More works like that here. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elfenbankje (Trametes versicolor) (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 07:25:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created & uploaded by User:Famberhorst - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The first of a series of excellent photos of turkey tail mushrooms on a dead branch, and I think probably the best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't stand out from other fungi pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice fungi, but the blurry foreground is distracting. Yann (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Meeting point of Sunkoshi and Tama Koshi River from Beni Ghat-IMG0620-Pano.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 08:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info B.P. Koirala Highway and Meeting point of Sun Kosi and Tamakoshi River from Benighat created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image is too softened. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Alchemist-hp: for your comment. I don't think so this images is too softened. Its looks OK in my screen. --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 19:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at a 100% view! It is too softened. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. Majestic, expansive view. I downscaled to 27 MP and found the level of detail passable for this genre. @Bijay chaurasia: Could you check your noise reduction settings? Some areas look slightly smudged and it looks much more like overaggressive NR than a lens fault. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Aasish Shah (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist. The background is not sharp enough. Softened? NR? -- -donald- (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per King. There are minor CAs on the far left though. – Lucas ^T 22:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.06.05.-23-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Plattbauch-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 15:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Broad-bodied chaser - Libellula depressa, male

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata]
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's really impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support UnitedPowers^talk 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Andromeda and the Sea Monster, 11364501.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 16:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Massimiliano Soldani Benzi / Getty Museum, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other GLAM picture of high quality. The sculptures themselves are impressive, and we have a detailed description from the Getty Museum. There are 2 versions of this picture, I choose this one which has more contrast. -- Yann (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, I am not happy with the image name, which is misleading as it just refers to one of the two sculptures. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I adopted the original title, but it can be renamed. I would do that after this is over. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Vihorlat (v zime) 035.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 20:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is nice, and I'm inclined to support, but is it possible you could increase the sharpness on the right side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone who would help me? (if necessary) --Milan Bališin (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lack of sharpness is caused by the lens, I don't think that this can be fixed. Unless you crop it off, of course. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Green color cast, and too much empty sky at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color actually seems OK to me, and worst come to worst that unsharp right side could be cropped out. But while that would make it a QI for me, it's just not enough of an exceptional composition for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. Please, just no cropping the picture. --Milan Bališin (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's your picture. No-one will edit the original without your consent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - There's a certain simplicity to the diagonal division between foreground and background and the very muted variation of colors in this winter snowscape picture, but I do like it and find it pleasurable to look at, along with the snowy shapes on the mountain. I also appreciate the labeling. The unsharpness on the right is regrettable, but I really only see it at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, but nothing special, no reason for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceiling of église Saint-Jacques, Tournai (DSCF8533).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 17:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Belgium
Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I wish there was something that could be done about the wall at left, but it's a small part of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scheßlitz St.Kilian Decke 1012567.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 13:45:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Cross vault of St.Kilian in Scheßlitz. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Compared to all the other great church ceilings, this impresses me neither in quality (which is certainly fine but not fantastically outstanding), nor - more crucially - subject. This slightly decorated but pretty drab ceiling bores me, so a photo of it would have to be outstanding indeed to wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan – Lucas ^T 22:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brooklyn Bridge at Night.jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2019 at 02:35:04

Info Low resolution, unsharp, and bad crop on the right which cuts off the eastern pillar. (Original nomination)
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist There are also perspective issues, the left pillar is leaning in --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree. This is no longer one of our best.--Peulle (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can we consider a 2005 digital photograph a historic photo? It's certainly from a different period of digital photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more about the subject than the time; a photo from the current century can be historic if it depicts a historic event, as we can see here. In this context, it's a no. There is nothing "historical" about this photo, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it's only the subject. Would you feature an Ansel Adams photo of a subject for which we also have huge stitched digital photographs? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact of the matter is, an Ansel Adams large format photo *is* high-quality even by the standards of today. Higher, in fact, than the majority of FPs we promote here - basically it will beat out any single-frame 35mm DSLR image, even with a D850. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points. This is mostly a devil's advocate argument. Notice that I haven't voted to keep this photo an FP. But I do think that some of the early digital photos probably should be kept as FPs in some category of early digital photos, as among the best examples of their time, although they fall short for a current nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ... although that sounds more like a VI argument than one for FP. FPs are "currently one of the finest images on Commons". Good illustrations of a certain period sounds more like a VI.--Peulle (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Didn't realize it was supposed to be a picture of the bridge ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Karelj (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small, and I don't like the foreground with the wooden objects. --A.Savin 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 11:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alpensteinbock Capra ibex-0801.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 21:44:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great headshot :) I would probably like it better with a tighter crop on the right but it's already FP-worthy as-is imo --Trougnouf (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the crop's not ideal. Did you have any space at the top? Nice dental job though. Charles (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What great horns! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of the lighting on this one. The face is dark and poorly lit, and fights for attention with the bright snow in the background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Change of format to less "panoramic" would be welcome, if possible --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Thanks a lot for comments and support. I changed to aspect ratio 1:1 and brightened up the face a bit. --Isiwal (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some green pixels every now and then but I'm not gonna pixel peep on a dental shot with such pretty horns. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that eye reflection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a detail! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mont Blanc from Les Arcs 1950.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2019 at 21:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info Mont Blanc seen from Les Arcs 1950. Created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmitry A. Mottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment too blue. 23:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Believe or not these are true colors: saturation=0, vibrance=0, contrast=0, clarity=0, dehaze=0, no filters. The only improvements are exposure=+1.7, shadows=+40 (sky and distant mountains are not affected) and removed lens flare --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. True to your settings, but not reality! Knowing the Alps as well as I do, I know the trees don't go blue. Charles (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as above --Charles (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This would be a great advertisement for Les Arcs 1950. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very lovely. Regarding the colors, there's no such thing as "true colors" since white balance must be set, and that is an artistic decision. That said, I think we have a rather wide tolerance for WB during the blue hour (though this is definitely on the blue side of things), since you're not trying to match what your eyes saw anyways. I've found that the optimal time for viewing a blue hour scene with the naked eye is often not the same as the optimal time for photographing it, which comes about 5-10 minutes later for me. By that time the sky already appears dark blue to me and the we only get the rich blues we see in photos by pushing the shadows in post, so it can only be an approximation of reality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Change my vote after verification on Lightroom, indeed you should increase the temperature, because your whites are too blue~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Support renewed, now an improved version has been uploaded. Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too violet-blue and not realistic. I don't find the "these are true colors" claim to be honest. The EXIF show the white balance has been adjusted to a custom value in Photoshop to 3750K and +15 tint, which would indeed generate a violet-blue effect. The EXIF also indicates a paint adjustment and a circular gradient adjustment that both have a temperature shift. So this image has been significantly altered by hand. Which is fine if the result is to create something realistic (my Sony camera's auto-white-balance is often a little too blue). As KoH says, white balance is a judgement, though the intention even in the blue hour, is to match what your eyes saw. It is a judgement initially made by the camera, but here it is altered too far into the artistic: this is Commons, not 500px. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the deeper you go into the night, the more you’ll stray from so-called reality. For example the Milky Way is nothing more than a faint cloud of light to the naked eye, but shows up in astrolandscapes as this brilliant formation in the sky - clearly enhanced by brightening the image beyond the capabilities of the human eye. So I contend that this image (or any blue hour image) may very well have appeared this blue to the eyes if only they had a higher “ISO” for color images (our “high ISO” mode is in monochrome, after all, robbing saturation from what should be in the image). —- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many milky-way photos are a collage of astronomical photo with long exposure (and possibly a tracking mount) with a landscape photo with shortish exposure (and static mount), though there are exceptions. I agree they aren't realistic either but we seem to accept it. Northern lights photos are a bit like that too -- enhanced saturation. Perhaps because few people/voters live somewhere that the atmosphere is clear of light pollution or polar enough, so they assume it is real. But all of us do know what a night landscape sky looks like, and I think you'd need to have to be smoking something illegal to see violet-blue like this. If the clock on the camera is correct, this photo was taken at 17:42, which according to The Photographer's Ephemeris, the sun is at -6.5°, which is bang in the middle of the "Blue Hour" region. So this isn't darkest night and the sky would appear dark blue to the eye. If this has been exposed brighter than what anyone would see, then I also reject it can be called "realistic" -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent here, but if you have a chance, see the Milky Way from 9,200 feet up Mauna Kea. It's quite brilliant up there on a clear night. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan sounds great. I am informed that the southern hemisphere has a much better milky way than the north. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii is still Northern Hemisphere, but it's far enough south that if I remember correctly, the astronomers said all (or at least almost all) of the southern as well as the northern constellations were visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say all but yes, most sounds right. And what makes Hawaii and Southern hemisphere great is that we can see a larger part of the galactic center, which is the brightest (because we're at the edge of galaxy and looking towards its... center :)). Some nice celestial objects like the Magellanic clouds are seen from southern hemisphere only. - Benh (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I find your claim a bit dishonest. Cameras can get wrong. So post adjustment of WB is sometimes, if not always, necessary. I don't know about that picture, but it seems fair to me that there can be a colour cast due to the sky. - Benh (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd point to the window on the right which is still quite yellow to support my claim here. - Benh (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK the light street lamps are very white :) u might be right about that picture :) - Benh (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, please read again what I wrote (and what I was responding to by the nominator). I agree that without a calibration chart, white balance is just a guess by the camera about the ambient light conditions and modifications to it in post processing might be needed (as I said, my Sony camera is often a little blue). I was specifically responding to the claim that "Believe or not these are true colors....The only improvements are..." which according to the EXIF is simply not true at all: this image has been extensively adjusted. My guess is this was much darker in reality, with a dark blue sky, and as KoH says, lightening it (the +1.7 exposure adjustment along with whatever exposure the camera took) produces an image with brighter saturated colours we don't see -- in combination with the temperature and tint shift applied. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake :) Yes it seems author did deceive reviewers here (Although the picture doesn't look that unnatural to me, but why lying about the post processing). - Benh (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cameras capture the world very differently to our eyes, and often it's not possible to recreate what eyes (and brain) see even with an expensive camera with all the right settings and calibration processes. Making matters worse photos are around for a long time so we are also used to seeing the world through them as well. I imagine we become used to certain shortcomings and even manipulations. For this image all I can suggest is to manually tone down the extreme color temperatures to bring both the outside and inside closer to neutral, just to relax viewers one time from saturated colors and allow them to appreciate other aspects of the view more. This is why I find B&W images often more relaxing. – Lucas ^T 22:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks all who mentioned that white balance was shifted. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and it should be made clear that you have now replaced this with an edited version– Lucas ^T 16:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mute swan (Cygnus olor) in Bowness-on-Windermere, England.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 12:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info All by me. It's a portrait of a mute swan on the background of waves of the lake Windermere in the Lake District, England. -- Podzemnik (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how you can see through the hole in its beak, I never knew they had this. – Lucas ^T 13:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lucas. I also like the water droplets. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common, but very high quality. Too much cloning the background around the head though (compared to original upload). Charles (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julia Margaret Cameron - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 09:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Julia Margaret Cameron / Google Art Project, retouched by Keraunoscopia, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - I find this disturbingly erotic, considering that the subject was 16, but that was a different period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Why is this image, which claims to be from the "Google Art Project" (in both title and body text) totally changed in colour from the original brown? There's nothing in the file description or title I can see to indicate this is Yann's derivative work (other than links to it claim "better colour"). We already have this image in the correct colours on Commons. Don't you remember Jan got indef blocked for this sort of thing? I see you have also substituted your personal colour change onto the Wikipedia article and elsewhere. That has removed an existing Wikipedia Featured Picture. Btw, the Wikipedia FP of the other image noted that this is ultimately taken from a larger photo that is damaged. -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: The original is not brown, but pink. I simply removed the pink stain. Why do you want to keep it? BTW the image you linked is sepia, contrary to the GAP one. And your reference to Jan is insulting. Please remove that. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, can you link to the "original" you think is pink. I see a google file and a Getty page. Both are the same brown as the original Commons file. Yours is greenish. What makes you think it is "stained" and why do you to upload to Commons a file that is not what you claim it is -- this is not the image from Google Art Projec--Colin (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)--Colin (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)t. The "source" links to a different coloured image. That is exactly the sort of misrepresentation of archive photos that got Jan into trouble. I am wondering if your PC or browser is not setup correctly. -- Colin (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenish??? This is nonsense. And my laptop is fine. Here is a real sepia version. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, regardless of what colours you see on your laptop, it is nothing like the colours of the source image or the copy at Getty museum. Can we at least agree on that? And can we agree that the community, when discussing Jan's uploads, were very upset that he misrepresented the source archive. Do you think you know better than the experts at Getty? Jan did, and it got him an indef block. I really, really, don't know why this needs explaining. And I don't know why you've just uploaded yet another "Yann-Special-Colours" version that doesn't say this on the file description page. Sticking "-sepia" on the filename doesn't "explain" what you did. Please can you amend the "Source" to indicate which images you've altered from the true source, and what changes you made. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Colin is right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Nevermind, I will do something else. Yann (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle of Cheverny 20.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 00:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive view! However a bit dark, and slightly asymmetrical. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the histogram it's not too dark. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bigger, but not as good as the image illustrating the Wikipedia article. In English - it's Château de Cheverny. --Charles (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the matter of taste... Tournasol7 (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as always at FP... I just don't like tourists, gardener, white tents or grey clouds. --Charles (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the light very much.--Peulle (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, the random tourists and the gardener aren't helping. – Lucas ^T 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breil-Brigels richting Val Frisal. (d.j.b.) 61.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 16:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects #Switserland Wooden bridge over the Flembach stream.
Info Breil/Brigels direction Val Frisal. Wooden bridge over the Flembach stream.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A beautiful place but the lighting just doesn't do any wonders for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- like lighting Seven Pandas (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts – Lucas ^T 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special -- ViseMoD (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. I think this view could result in a featurable image ... if it was taken at different time of day. As it is, we have a washed out sky and decidedly yellowed grass. These things could be fixed, but the image is also quite noisy on its few dark areas. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivanovo Obl Myt asv2018-08 img18.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2019 at 13:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Russia
Info Lukh River at Myt, Ivanovo Oblast, Russia, during sunset ----- all by A.Savin -- A.Savin 13:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful shot, I would have supported it as a natural area but all these houses spoil it imo --Trougnouf (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Really lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine --Isiwal (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks better at full size, when you can appreciate the scale of the landscape around the churches. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to take this little boat for going to Myt ... Tozina (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Linz Neuer Dom Rudigier-Orgel 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 16:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Rudigier Organ at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (New Cathedral) in Linz, Upper Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 16:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is that Jesus hiding behind a pillar on the left? -- Colin (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is probably St. Peter or St. Paul, as there is a corresponding statue on the other side. --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support very great Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent picture, but it's a shame that they are using nondescript modern lights in the cathedral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great quality and nice view but is it eventually possible to have a version with somewhat more floor visible? I find the crop too tight at the bottom. --Code (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Фумаролы вулкана Мутновский.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 18:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Russia
Info Fumarole of Mutnovsky Volcano. South Kamchatka Sanctuary, Russia. Сreated by Nimuel23 - uploaded by Nimuel23 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Great scene but small with no mitigating factors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the photographer had the opportunity to shoot better, given the danger :) JukoFF (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was taken using a 16 MP camera, so more resolution is definitely possible; we don't want to encourage downsampling. The "wow" factor in this image doesn't rise to the level where I feel compelled to support in spite of the low resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per King --Isiwal (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I won't vote on this unless I can see a full-size image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smiling girl holding a lotus flower.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 01:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lovely picture, however, very tight composition, insufficient depth of field, prepared composition or main subject with artificial pose, main subject not relevant, shot in contrapicado (low angle could be work better), noise in the background and permission from his parents is recommended. --Photographer 02:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I don't have the permission ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the permission is not in the image description template --Photographer 02:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The PR template has always been here since the upload -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:Information used in the image description permission parameter does not have any information about her parents, however, you are right PR work I think so --Photographer 03:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! BTW: the depth of field (criticized above) is IMHO perfectly fine: this is a portrait photo, so low DOF is appropriate. --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Garment might be a little overexposed in places, but that's not what this is a picture of. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wish the flower were a little further from her face, but that's just personal taste. The DoF is good for a portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support UnitedPowers^talk 13:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Frederik Kuhlau.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 11:14:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Det Kgl. Biblioteks billedsamling - uploaded by Rettinghaus - nominated by Rettinghaus -- Rettinghaus (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rettinghaus (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We flutists all know Kuhlau. Excellent quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

flutist? Charles (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a professional flutist. :-) Or as you would say, flautist (pronounced "flaw-tist" in Britain). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Hristo Stoichkov with EC cup 2016.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 06:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by --Biser Todorov (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC) - uploaded by --Biser Todorov (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)- nominated by Biso -- Biser Todorov (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful event shot, and probably COM:VI, but the crops at left and right are not OK: the man is cut, and the blurry person is disturbing. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann – Lucas^T 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes I wonder if you know what is voted HERE ??? Please read what it says at the beginning... Or do you think this picture is not worth? Is it not historically important? Is it easy to do?--Biser Todorov (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I share the criticism explained well by Yann and cutting off people halfway is distracting at least. – Lucas ^T 21:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann.--Peulle (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linden trees and the sky in Planina, Postojna, Slovenia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 09:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Slovenia
Info All by me. I like the simplicity of it - the colours, the clouds, the light. -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely – Lucas ^T 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is how to be Unter den Linden ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rufous-headed ground-roller (Atelornis crossleyi).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 10:45:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info A secretive forest-dwelling bird. Lives between 800m and 2000m. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GeXeS (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Background is a little distracting on the left, but a beautiful bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia de Cristo, Windhoek, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 18:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Christ church or Christuskirche, Windhoek, Namibia. The church, built beween 1907-1910 and designed by architect Gottlieb Redecker, was originally known as the Church of Peace as it was built following the wars between the Germans and the Khoikhoi, Herero, and Owambo. It was constructed from quartz sandstone mined from the vicinity and has a mixture of neo-Romanesque, Art Nouveau and Gothic revival influences. All by me. Poc o² 18:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't unsee the way the sidewalk edge is cut off on the bottom, what could have been a harmonic base for the photo – Lucas ^T 21:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not knowing what's beyond the statue on the left, and whether the frame goes that far, is it possible to include a bit more so the two sides aren't so dissonant (completely open on the right and almost completely closed on the left)? As it is now the open right side coupled with the tower creates a very unbalanced composition. If not possible try cropping a tiny bit from the right (in the middle or just after the trunk of the smaller palm tree should be fine) to bring balance to the ~~Force~~ image. Lucas is also right that some more breathing room would be better at the bottom. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KennyOMG: I've reworked the crop on both sides but there's no much I can do at the bottom, though. (eta: yes, the other picture looks nice!) --Poc o² 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Even accounting for the bottom crop and the flat light, I still see an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. I really like so much about the picture, but the bottom crop causes me tension. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Lucasbosch, KennyOMG, Daniel Case, and Ikan Kekek: Is this other view FP-worthy in your eyes? --Poc o² 19:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some of the crops could be more generous on that one, too, but yes, I think so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cut off palm tree on the right, sidewalk cuts into the corner, so it is irking me similarily. Apart from that the angle is better and without obstruction by that palm tree. – Lucas ^T 19:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Cut off palm tree on the right" - can't please'em all. :) Maybe the crop was a bit too much but I think it's more balanced. Can't support without more space at the bottom though. (eta: yes the other picture looks nice!) -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Ok, will try the other version, thanks. --Poc o² 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avefría coronada (Vanellus coronatus), Santuario de Rinocerontes Khama, Botsuana, 2018-08-02, DD 22.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 18:55:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info Exemplar of crowned lapwing (Vanellus coronatus), Khama Rhino Sanctuary, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 18:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The animal doesn't stand out enough for me but this is a natural feature so I don't want to oppose it for that alone. Otherwise there is no wow factor, just a high quality telephoto image, but we have QI and VI for that and IMHO FP should be more impressive, if just with lighting. – Lucas ^T 21:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This blurred background is a little too active, to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as overexposed, per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Karelj (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Poc o² 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baustelle Hölzla 6066312.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 20:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Engineer with construction plan at the ABS Nürnberg–Ebensfeld. All by me. -- Ermell (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, convincing portrait, nice bokeh. --Aristeas (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - though I wonder what he's doing with the tape measure over the buildings plan. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As to Poszemnik's question: when working on a construction project, it's a good idea to check your construction plans frequently. And this gentleman is not building a shed but a high-speed railway line. :) MartinD (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Edgar Degas - Waiting - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 18:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Edgar Degas / Google Art Project, uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Waiting is a pastel on paper by the French Impressionist Edgar Degas, completed between 1880–82. This work is regarded for its vibrant colouring and steep perspective. Very high resolution. -- Yann (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality rendering of a classic painting.--Peulle (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extraordinary resolution of a pastel, very valuable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glad that we have a good reproduction of this important artwork. --Aristeas (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lincoln assassination slide c1900 - Restoration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 16:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info After T. M. McAllister - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GeXeS (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Malojapass Böhringer 2018.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 14:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't decided how to vote, because being upset is an emotional reaction and arguably a reason to vote for, not against, but that said: This does not look like a natural place at 80 seconds, because the long exposure accentuates the lights on the cars on the road in a very disconcerting way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fun picture :) You have my vote if you upload a full resolution picture, provide a descriptive English description, categorize it well, and remove the chromatic aberrations. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the meantime, also the white balance / saturation should be toned down a bit per Basile (but maybe not as far as the version he posted) --Trougnouf (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very blue and downsized. Charles (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as above. --Charles (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would be great to remove chromatic aberrations on the left --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Trougnouf. I really like this idea, but the execution could have been done better. I would suggest using layers.--Peulle (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. The temperature is too cold, the snow abnormally blue, and the colors seem oversaturated. If you increase the temperature on Lightroom the aspect of the image becomes immediately more realistic -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly the suggestions here would help, but I'm fine with this as is. Daniel Case (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. -- B2Belgium (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. I find the comparison of his edit vs. this photo very convincing, even if it would make sense to keep a bit of blue cast and not go all the way in that direction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. White balance seems accurate to me, at least it works very well aesthetically. Resolution could be higher but we've seen smaller pictures pass here. Regarding the CA I think they are small and we have strong mitigating reasons here. --Code (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Sahand Ace 20:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Neutral until CA is fixed - at 6 MP several pixels wide is very significant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and also see my comment on the earlier nomination which is also getting critiqued for strong blue colors. – Lucas ^T 22:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support thank you Tomer T --Böhringer (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Great picture! Well done[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The slopes of the mountains in the background show clear traces of processing in the form of diffuse double structures. It seems layers aren't congruent. All trees on the left are leaning out. I can not understand the abundance of encouragement. The picture has obvious flaws and can´t be a FP --Milseburg (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trougnouf, King of Hearts, Milseburg. A great picture, no offence! but I don’t understand why don’t you fix the CAs. Especially at the trees at the top left, they are very pronounced. --Aristeas (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saslonch da Mont de Seuc.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 18:22:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will support this when the stitching errors are fixed.--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The mistakes in the sky on the left side I meant or am I the only one who sees them?--Ermell (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You are not alone. --Granada (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive szene and size, but there are visible edges in the upper left area. So not perfect and not FP yet. The lower left corner is unsharp. --Milseburg (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Milseburg: , @Ermell: , @Isiwal: , thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Still work to do. With such an impressive landscape, nobody is looking up at the sky, but still the bug should be fixed. Please take a look at the note.--Ermell (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am a bit worried how quickly some motifs are waved through here, without looking carefully. Moroder has many good motives and good equipment. Such issues should be resolved prior to nomination. My tip would be to reduce the nomination rate a bit and take a closer look when processing the photos. By the way it would be interesting to fill in the Template:Panorama complete. How many frames are this? Which stitcher is used? --Milseburg (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now till the editing errors are fixed - should not be too difficult. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending resolution of the edge on the cloud. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I hope I've fixed definitely the last flows. I agree with Milseburg that "motifs are waved through here, without looking carefully" but it's a hard work with such big photos and I promise I'll be more accurate and hope not to rely on all the hints of the reviewers (which I appreciate a lot) in future. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentAlso at the risk that I will be seen here as picky but there is still something to do, see note. In some parts of the sky you can also see traces of the brush. I would remove the light posterization with the soft focus.--Ermell (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO OK --Isiwal (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support o.k. now.--Ermell (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the sky is still not OK. But the strong posterizations are easy to fix.
Comment Sorry but for me there are to much processing traces visible as hems around the clouds in the upper left area to be a FP. FPs have to be perfect even when the resolution is high. --Milseburg (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is posterization all over the clouds. – Lucas ^T 10:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:50pfg-koeln2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 21:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Notgeld (emergency money), Cologne, Germany, 1922, signed by Lord Mayor and later German Chancellor K. Adenauer, RV: two city soldiers performing the traditional dance "Stippeföttche"

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by unknown designer - reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine and pretty well-known example of Notgeld. What strikes me is the rather jolly theme used in a rather deplorable context. But that's Cologne, a carnival stronghold, after all. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As per Martin Falbisoner. MartinD (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 20:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 05:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Ingrown oval sculpture of human head in a tree trunk in Laos (1).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 00:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like an amateurish attempt to copy Category:Statue of Buddha's head surrounded by tree roots, Ayutthaya, which is famous. As a photo, there is really nothing I see remarkable about it. While File:เศียรพระพุทธรูปในรากโพธิ์.jpg was a controversial FP, it got into the final of POTY. This, in comparison, is just a snapshot. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Amateurish" couldn't be more wrong. There's this face also very near in the same tree, which is not surrounded by roots, and that the monks everyday honor with encense and gifts just because it's part of their real worship. This (different) FP was controversial because it is unsharp and completely overprocessed. It would have had less oppose votes if the post-treatment had been better. There are religious items surrounded by tree roots in many places in Asia, in Ayutthaya Thailand of course, but also in Ankhor Vat Cambodia, and here in Laos in this isolated place where no tourist never go. Just search "temple of Don Som" on Google and you'll find no result because it is not an attraction (contrary to that famous one in Thailand). It is similar to other (better known) sculptures, yes, and so, what's the problem ? Are these fake roots ? For me it's an extraordinary creation showing the local spirit in link with nature. That also completely illustrates the art in Laos. It's just 100% authentic. Here photographically the fresh leaves gives something special, but even the painted sculpture itself I find this absolutely great, culturally amazing -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support according to Basile's statement --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We shouldn't be judging the work itself, just the image of it. I could see opposing it on the basis of this image being too similar in concept to the other one, but I wouldn't be the one doing it. As it is, this to me is different enough because it has a playfulness the other one lacks. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We often judge subjects (castles => wow, ordinary houses => meh). We also judge the aspects that make a great photo (great light, great composition, great moment). This has none of those. It is very much a "point camera directly at subject in very ordinary light and press shutter button". It is a QI, but I see no FP here. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a "point camera directly at subject in very ordinary light and press shutter button". I've got this picture at several times of the day, including one at 6:35 am, which means I woke up before sunrise and took my boat in the darkness to reach this island, to make the best picture of this subject. That's my way of creating, yes. I love this shot in particular, its composition, the natural light, and think the "great moment" was to discover by chance this rare camouflaged object. Thanks, Daniel -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It doesn't look like much in a thumbnail but quite impressive in a full size. --Podzemnik (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 05:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:MuseoJuanManuelBlanes-Montevideo.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 21:17:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring lighting on an overcast day, unbalanced composition with distracting tree base and random people, one of them even seemingly reacting to being photographed. – Lucas ^T 21:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light and per Lucas -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas and Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. -- Ikan Kekek ([[User talk:Ikan Kekek|
Oppose per Lucas. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks!!!! Ezarateesteban 21:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 16:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johannes Wilhjelm, Skagens gamle kirke. Nat, 1910. SKM1393, Skagens Kunstmuseer.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 19:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Painted by en:Johannes Wilhjelm Foto by Kirsten Bøjstrup/Skagens Kunstmuseer - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not af "night photography" but a "night painting" with ekstrem long exposure ;-) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I usually don't vote on pictures of paintings on canvas when I don't know the painter or the style, but this seems pretty clearly to be a very high-resolution shot, and I also like the painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful painting, good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive detail. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alpine chough on Veliki Vrh, Karawanks, Slovenia 10.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 20:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Corvidae_(Crows,_Jays_and_Magpies)
Info All by me. It's alpine chough in its natural environment - on top of Veliki Vrh (2060m), Slovenia. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question It looked too soft when viewing at 100 % and then I noticed that the previous verson had more sharpening, to my eye to an appropriate amount. As it is I can't support this "less sharpening" version. – Lucas ^T 21:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas You reckon that the previous amount of sharpening was better? I tend to sharpen less as I'm trying to avoid these bright lines around subjects from oversharpening. But you're probably right that this time it wasn't that bad - I uploaded a new version with more sharpening. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik thanks, it's much better now and I don't see any artifacts. Bright lines can be mitigated by adjusting the settings, there are many guides on the internet about unsharpen mask and other techniques and how to handle them, in various programs. – Lucas 16:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Silly me, it's as simple as masking! Thanks for the advice, --Podzemnik (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the lighting, leaving most of the bird in shadow. --Charles (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp --Fischer.H (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. I have to agree that a black bird photographed in shadow is not optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alright, thank you for your time, I'll capture it better next time :) Cheers, Podzemnik (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crew Demo-1 Mission (39684490143).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 22:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by Elisfkc - nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose heavily downsized from the 50 MP the 5DS is capable of. It looks quite soft and grainy as well. – Lucas ^T 23:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. Quality really could be better for 2019. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas.--Peulle (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas, and could benefit from perspective correction as well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. -- Karelj (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stanford Dish April 2011 003.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 05:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice, but not amazing to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. It's not special enough to give me the fizz.--Peulle (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I think there could be a featurable image here, but definitely not this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marina Bays Sands Hotel and ArtScience Museum Singapore.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 00:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Singapore
Info Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Crazy, surreal scene. I find it a bit uncomfortable to look at, but the photo is certainly really well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Technically well composed but the greyish sky and lighting are bland. Since this is one of the most photographed landmarks of one of the richest and most populous cities in the world, surely we could wait for better lighting? dllu (t,c) 07:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already have File:Cricket match and Marina Bay Sands Hotel in Singapore.jpg which had an artistically interesting juxtaposition of cricket match and weird building. This doesn't have that, and in ordinary daylight. It needs something extra for FP per dllu: panorama, high-resolution stitch, or exceptional lighting, for example. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas 22:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary afternoon shot of a well-known building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wago 221-413 splicing connector with stranded wire.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 19:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me – Lucas ^T 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good quality of photo, but no wow factor to me. -- -donald- (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different, and because I like the abstract forms I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting at 100 %. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support KTC (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Superb technical quality, but looks a bit like an advertising shot. Charles (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charles if the photo feeling like an advertising shot is a detriment for you, please explain why. – Lucas 18:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the composition (not the blackground) is similar to those used by the company in its advertising for this product range. Charles (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but rest assured I arrived at this composition from my own thoughts and was led by the text orientation on the connector. The manufacturer mainly uses computer generated images though. – Lucas 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 20:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:2017.04.21.-03-Mannheim Vogelstang--Gamander-Ehrenpreis.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 08:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks over saturated to me. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 5 few years ago I've photographed also a Gamander Ehrenpreis, see: File:Gamander-Ehrenpreis.jpg. I think the detail quality of the nomineee here is not sufficient for an FP (compare with my photo). In 100% view the photo here looks somehow overprocessed, especially at the edge of the flower. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not know the picture of Tuxyso and at the moment I only view this candidate. The blossom is very detailed and sharp. And I like this composition with a sharp main focus and blurred rest. --Tozina (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin; it seems too saturated for me. Sorry. Tournasol7 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Saturation doesn't bother me so much (unsurprising) but it is horribly overprocessed ... just look at the edges of the petals. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Daniel, I've reworked it. However, without changing the saturation. This saturation isn't more adjusted than in my other pictures too and I love it. Hope it's good now. --Hockei (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info @MZaplotnik, Seven Pandas, Tozina, and Yann: You should take another look in order to see if you still like it because of my reworking. Thanks. --Hockei (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Geneva from Chillon Castle.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 10:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Switzerland
Info. Lake Geneva seen from Chillon Castle. Created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmitry A. Mottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks like a copy from an old master. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The exact copy. No difference at all :-) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!--Famberhorst (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 20:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically not perfect but the lighting and the composition are totally great. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 20:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- There are two dust spots (see note) Llez (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey! Those are birds! :-) Anyway removed --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.06.05.-22-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Plattbauch-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 09:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info This is the same dragonfly as in this picture but has a complete another view and composition. I was really not sure if I should nominate it due to you possibly dislike the wing in the foreground. On the other hand ... see for yourself. ;-) Thanks in advance. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with you about all but one of the wings, but this is otherwise a pretty interesting view and quite an impressive closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Super detail, but colours seem a little over-saturated. --Charles (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tozina (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Остров Белл и Убежище Эйры.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 18:23:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Russia
Info Bell Island of Franz Josef Land Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia. Created by Timinilya - uploaded by Timinilya - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, considering that this photo is made from a drone composition and quality are great. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Could you level horizon? --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I am not the author of the photo: ( JukoFF (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Excellent picture, but why is it downsized? The camera of the drone provides a resolution of 5472x3648 px! --Isiwal (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but tilted and downsized -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discovering 9 days later the horizon has been fixed, though too late now to change my vote -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks great at 3x my 13-inch screen size, which is bigger than the full size of this picture. Also looks pretty good at 200% of full size, especially considering that it's a drone pic. I'd love to see the picture in its original size, but it's an impressive, unusual view. I don't think we should demand that drone pictures have absolutely level horizons - do you demand that of shots from planes, too? Satellite pics? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not a drone nor a robot that uploaded this file on Commons. So the author should do as everyone usually do when checking their pictures, just fix the tilt by a simple rotation of the image, quick and easy step in post-process, and aesthetic touch to avoid a sea rocking like a supernatural phenomenon. I can understand a selfie by a monkey being kept not leveled, but a drone ? Is that a creative tool ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! --Tozina (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would like that the Features pictures have had more pictures of this kind! --ViseMoD (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong tilted, so definitely not a FP. The motif has potential but the technic isn´t. The sharpness is rather low considering the also low resolution. --Milseburg (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Milseburg: Is it tilted? The horizon seems fairly straight. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I gave my vote, the horizon was tilted. Someone has corrected that and failed to point this out here. I hadn´t noticed any change without your ping. So my comment seems foolish. But it doesn´t realy matter now.--Milseburg (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great (and rare) motif and very good in terms of composition. The sharpness is very good, too. I'd immediately change to support if someone would level the horizon. --Code (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tuxyso. This may be a new candidate for northernmost FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, quite impressive, especially now after the horizon has been levelled. --Aristeas (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Овцебыки - самые грозные млекопитающие Таймыра.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 10:01:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Muskox on Bolshoy Begichev Island in Laptev Sea. Natural monument Terpey-Tumus, Sakha (Yakutia) Republic, Russia. -- ViseMoD (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't found a picture of a Muskox in a wild with such high quality on wiki. -- ViseMoD (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question downsized? Charles (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question ViseMoD is this downsized? Charles (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No response. I assume it is downsized. Will cancel oppose if it isn't --Charles (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the author, so can't be sure. But looks like it is downsized. --ViseMoD (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean you should withdraw the nomination? "Images should not be downsampled" --Charles (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let the people decide! ;-) --ViseMoD (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot closer than I got to any muskoxen during my time in the Arctic ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop it above and on the left so that the face is centred in the middle. --Hockei (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles.--Peulle (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A really cool image but per Charles. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ramparts of the historic fortified city of Carcassone 16.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 00:29:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. Reminds me of one of my own images. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some verticals of the higher towers seem to be a bit tilted to the left, espesially in the left half. --Milseburg (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but this is quite some level below the standards for Castles/Fortifications on Commons. I'm guessing you are using Lightroom's photo merge, rather than a dedicated package such as Hugin or PtGui. For architecture, these are essential in order to supply vertical alignment guidelines and appropriate projection adjustment. The horizon is titled strongly at both sides, the towers are all quite wonky, including the middle corner. The far left is blurred. Overall, it looks quite strongly vertically compressed. The light and shadow combination is unfortunate too. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I use the Lightroom. Thanks for your review. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. It's quite dizzying to look at. – Lucas ^T 18:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've crossed out my vote and comment. I guess I was too absorbed with the details to notice the tilts mentioned above, but I see them now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but the closer you get to either edge, the worse the flaws get, as Colin documents. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 06:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 16:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool. Have you ever seen or heard any music from this opera? I have not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Auber's one of those important-but-not-much-performed-anymore fellows. But the overture's on Youtube, and it does sound very good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please, could you describe the restoration procedure? because i can just see a cut --Photographer 23:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly dust and scratch removal, though there was also repairing some bits where some paint had obviously flaked off, and fingerprint removal.Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) female Montagne d’Ambre (2).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 14:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pity for the overexposure of the branch, but I guess you can't do much about it. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked a bit. Charles (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Our finest reptile photography includes habitat. What is the point in photographing one in the mountains of Madagascar, when the result looks like a pet in somoene's bedroom? The hard direct flash does it no favours either, resulting in over exposure and loss of three-dimensionality. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still bearing a grudge from the 'flash can kill a chameleon' discussion. Sad. And of course it's not direct flash. Try looking at the shadow from the tail wrapped around the branch. Of course it's an artifical setting, but that doesn't stop it aspiring to be included in our finest reptile photography. --Charles (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I bear a grudge? I seem to recall you got upset with The Photographer. Charles, this does you no favours. I commented on the photo, and I examined our collection of reptile FPs. I said the flash was direct, I didn't claim it was a ring flash. Any flash mounted a few inches from the centre of the camera produces that effect. Please Charles, go look at the link you added to our current FP reptiles. Ambient light, or merely using a little fill-flash would have included some habitat colours, but you went for tiny aperture, low ISO, fast shutter and a whopping big flash at a distance of 1.6m to compensate for your choice of settings. So the wood is blown and the background is lost. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall you being with me when I took the picture and your analysis of my camera settings shows a very limited understanding of night-time wildlife photography. I chose to have a blackground. Charles (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, first you transfer your grudge on to me (who has nothing to have a grudge about), then insult me. Your camera settings may well be for a chosen black background, if you say so, but they also required an unnecessarily bright flash to compensate, hence the over-exposed branch. That's basic photography, nature, night-time, or otherwise. My opinion stands, and since you once again seem to be more interested in personal attacks, than photography, I'm unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I propose to lay down the weapons. There are more important things in life than a picture!--Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Colin, I find the back background very good: it helps making the animal standing apart. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would support this for the style which is similar to my still life photos, but the lack of sharpness and therefore definition of its features, especially on the head, and the out of focus areas, are too much. All this is visible even without zooming in to 100 %. – Lucas ^T 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the overexposure on the branch as that is not the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case --Llez (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Wond van een afgebroken tak. Europese larix (Larix decidua) 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 16:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Wounded tree (Larix decidua).
Info This is a picture of a large open bleeding wound of a European larch. The tree produces resin to protect the open wound from external influences. Stelvio National Park (Italy). Wound from a broken branch. European larch (Larix decidua).
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost looks like a mouth ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop is too tight in my opinion and there's not too much of wow factor in the subject, as these kinds of wounds in trees aren't too unusual. Sorry. --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respect your opinion about this picture. But I would like to give a little explanation. The European larix (Larix decidua) occurs in Central Europe especially in the Alps. We are nature lovers and love the Alps. We have been going on holiday for years. Rarely have we seen a larix (Larix decidua) with such a large bleeding wound against the trunk as the larix in this photo. The branch has been broken down to the outside of the core in the tree trunk. An ordinary photo that you can shoot regularly is not my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have similar Pinaceae family trees here in Finland, and I've seen similar wounds in them. The subject may be interesting, but the problem is more in the current presentation (crop and composition). --Msaynevirta (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree on the tight crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not FP subject for me --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good valued image, but no for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 11:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info I really like how Johnston used sepia to bring out the lace. I have tweaked the levels a bit to try and bring out the detail, but the effect is 100% in the original. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is good: the pose, the costume, the original photograph, the copy, and the restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question You're sure the darks aren't too darkened? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried a few things, and this looked best to me. Anything much lighter looked faded out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, please add info about the restoration procedure in the image description. --Photographer 01:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, though it was pretty standard. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tozina (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 22:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Verein Trierisch (ed.), reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are those dark spots on the left side on the original? Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, they are. I decided to leave it the way it is, didn't clone out anything. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ I really like this one, especially because of the top text, which says that the publication has been approved by the French military command. It was 1919 and a harmless little thing like this still had to be approved by the French. Says something about why the Germans became so resentful in the following years.--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- American military ... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out; I was actually thinking about the one from September. That's the one I'd nominate, for the reason stated above.--Peulle (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a beautiful illustration. I feel like this cover could benefit from a little digital restoration, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it would be quite easy to "clean it up", but on the other hand, it is obvious that this particular copy has had its own history. That's why I like it with its "patina" which IMO underlines the above-mentioned historical context. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is this issue now rare that only a couple of copies still exist? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Obviously quite rare, at least it is the only one I know. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support provisionally, on the basis that you tried searching catalogs of rare book dealers and libraries. I tried doing a quick search on Addall and don't think I found a copy for sale there. Worldcat didn't seem to find anything, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If rarity is the criterion, there aren't that many of these on Commons, which is where we should focus our search, no? It can always be delisted later if more are uploaded. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion it's an excellent reproduction of a rare document. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tozina (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Heracles with the dragon - Castle square Karlsruhe.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2019 at 21:59:54 (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) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, nothing should be visible in the dark parts of the picture or is this the intention? --Ermell (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thanks for the hint. It was photographed gainst the dark sky and I overlooked some faint lights spots. I cloned them out. --Llez (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Real surrealist art. ;o) --Yann (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:View southwest from Ben Lawers, Scottish Highlands, Scotland.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2019 at 19:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_Kingdoom
Info All by me. It's a view from Ben Lawers, Scotland, in the early morning when the sun is up but the moon is still well visible. I tried to remove the unsharp area in the right corner but ended up leaving it. I simply like how it balances out the triangle shadows of the corner. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressing landscape.--Ermell (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Glorious. It doesn't matter that there's a corner that's unsharp at that resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and now a dram of Oban 16 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tozina (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waldseemuller map 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 11:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by Martin Waldseemüller / Library of Congres, uploaded by Jackaranga, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Martin Waldseemüller's map from 1507 is the first map to include the name "America" and the first to depict the Americas as separate from Asia. There is only one surviving copy of the map, which was purchased by the Library of Congress in 2001 for $10 million. -- Yann (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Magnificent, beautiful document and photo, truly a great FP in addition to being an obvious one for historical reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tozina (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing document -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flammulina velutipes, Velvet Shank, UK2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 20:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created - uploaded by Stu's Images - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The DoF is too low for me here, meaning there is not enough sharpness or detail.--Peulle (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft focus and need more DoF --Photographer 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flensburg 50 Pfg 1920.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 16:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tozina (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you think that the template is filled properly? I think File:50 Armenian dram - 1998 (reverse).png or File:100 Palestine Mils 1948 Obverse.png make more sense when parameter "date" is saved for the issue date and "author" for a real author, not for the author of the digitized version. What do you think? --Podzemnik (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I've changed it accordingly. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you! --Podzemnik (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually I do it like this, but here I wasn't careful enough. --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Frederic Edwin Church - Twilight in the Wilderness - 1965.233 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tiff, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 17:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by the Cleveland Museum of Art - uploaded by BotMultichill - nominated by EurekaLott - Eureka Lott 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Twilight in the Wilderness is an 1860 painting by Frederic Edwin Church. A different image of this painting was formerly a featured image at en.wikipedia, but was delisted in 2006 due to the number of compression artifacts. It was Wikipedia's picture of the day on August 21, 2004 and on July 29, 2005. We now have this higher-quality version, courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art. - Eureka Lott 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's lovely and all, but I don't feel like voting for it as it's a big TIFF file, meaning the file size is bigger than it needs to be and thus less useful. Have you considered making a PNG version?--Peulle (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe File:Frederic Edwin Church - Twilight in the Wilderness.jpg was downloaded from the Cleveland Museum of Art's site, and there are other (lower-resolution) files in Category:Twilight in the Wilderness. - Eureka Lott 17:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support a JPEG version. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I absolutely agree to upload this type of work (photos of paintings) in TIFF format with the aim of preserving the original colors, however, mediocre photography of a masterful painting, this painting deserves a better reproduction. --Photographer 22:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This painting looks like a bad photograph to me, very dark and details lost in the shadow. Maybe the original is better, but at least this view is not successful. In addition, TIFF format is too heavy -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, .TIFF format problems (I can't get it to open in Large Image Viewer, nor can I view it at full size without downloading it). Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel de Balene in Figeac 05.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 18:59:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal composition and forced center resulting on a unatural horizontal distortion (maybe authomatic lr horizontal) --Photographer 22:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... and distracting shadow on the left --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, and a little unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo (December 2018).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 17:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Finland
Info Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo. A photograph by me. --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nitpicky, I know, but the lowest row of tiles show that the camera was either not aligned with the tiles well enough or it was tilted marginally. If this is fixed I'd be happy to reconsider. – Lucas ^T 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not convince me, and it looks somewhat distorted (see previous comment) --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree Uoaei1 Seven Pandas (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Seven Pandas, Uoaei1, and Lucasbosch: Did a small perspective correction, what do you think, is it better? --Msaynevirta (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I strike my oppose. – Lucas ^T 17:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty restful composition to me, and I don't mainly mean because it's late at night and there are no people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is fine with me, but the contrast is just too high. As a result the eyes are drawn only to the logo at the top and the horizontal line in the middle, detracting attention from the more interesting interior. I think it would work better if taken earlier in the night. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark, nothing special in my view, and the upper left corner with banners in the shadow is particularly ugly -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viaduct with Langwies from Rongg.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 17:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely scene, but the big shadow in the corner distracts from it too much. Also the shadow together with a more near tree top (not well identifiable without zooming in, too) cover up half of the village. Overall, the image doesn't tell a clear story to me as it contains too many competing elements of similar size in the frame. The composition could be improved as well. – Lucas ^T 19:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The sweeping shape works well enough to me as a composition, and the shadow is minor to me, in the scheme of things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works better, and thus the shadow is less distracting, if you see it as a winter landscape rather than a picture of the bridge (Nice that you waited for the train to be going over it). Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel nailed it --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Theodore Monod - Adrar de Mauritanie - Oued Akerdil - Décembre 1998.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 14:16:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Bruno Lecoquierre - nominated by Groupir ! -- Groupir ! (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Groupir ! (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small for me, and full of dust spots.--Peulle (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle – Lucas 22:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Not QI quality, though perhaps it could be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a QI, considering we would be judging it from 1998 standards (on the moment of creation). What do you think?--Peulle (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if the dust spots are cleaned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec Interior window 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 00:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Photographer 00:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much darkness and technical issues. These large black sides left and right don't work for me. Certainly a vertical shot would have been more adapted. With these silhouettes in the center we don't need redundant black parts to crush the view with excessive darkness. The two white vertical lines around the door are strange and make the composition complicated. Nothing is really sharp on the image and the children seem not in focus. The banner with text is not great and the lantern at the bottom make the background chaotic -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work for me.--Peulle (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me either --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin – Lucas 21:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai skyline November 2017, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 23:48:09 (UTC)

Shanghai skyline at dusk
Shanghai skyline at night

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The first in the series presents an expository view of the scene under natural blue hour light. The second, taken less than 30 minutes after the first, showcases Shanghai's unique nightly display of lights.
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good details, the day version with a sky a bit noise in 100 %, and the night version a irregular soft focus on the right border, however, photopollution is common on Shanghai. Also, the day version has a blurred ships on the left and right bottom that are distracting and the header of the Oriental Pearl Tower lost details. --Photographer 23:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I added a bit of NR on the first image. When correcting perspective for tall buildings, you inevitably end up stretching the top and shrinking the bottom, so unless you downsample the entire image the top sections will always be slightly less sharp at full resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I underestand the point when you are corecting perspective (BTW, please add the panorama template to the images if its the case) and be careful when you are applying NR, its better apply a selective NR and not a general NR resulting on lost details. I find your pictures a well done work and my only critic is the ships with motion blur that could be solved taking a fast shoot combining this with a long exposure to later make the boat appear clear with another layer in photoshop --Photographer 00:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not everything is tack sharp, but I like both photos enough to support them individually and as a set. These also merit VIC nomination, as the skyline will doubtless be different in x-number of years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the day version, neutral for the one at night. Impressive architecture, high resolution and nice composition on the left, but in the version at night I regret the colorful light reflection in the water was cut. Probably this choice was made to harmonize both with exactly the same framing, unfortunately the cut seems abrupt here, and visually it would certainly have been much more aesthetic with this special feature, missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huh, so good! --Podzemnik (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given all the images we have of the Lujiazui skyline (mine included), it is mildly surprising to me that the first ones to be nominated here and be feature quality are a night-and-day pair that do not go for lurid color and are not taken from the central Bund (Where were you? Looks like you were up near the Waibaidu Bridge; I can't tell from the geotagging since as usual with anything in the PRC it is deliberately off ... it seems to have you in the Huangpu, just off the Lujiazui side, which can't be right). Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates are accurate with respect to map view in Google Maps (as opposed to satellite view). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so you actually were on the Bund. Will so subcategorize. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The China GPS shift problem strikes again! dllu (t,c) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Neat how the night shot wasn't ruined by a bunch of brightly lit boats steaming down the river. Now, if only the picture was 195 gigapixels rather than a measly 50 megapixels... dllu (t,c) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trees in fog on the northern side of Loch Tay, Scottish Highlands, Scotland.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 15:58:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Fog
Info All by me. Trees in fog on the northern side of Loch Tay, Scottish Highlands, Scotland -- Podzemnik (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Podzemnik (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 21:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would be better with some of the top cropped out; we don't need half the photo to be grey fog. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts I already cropped some fog out but well, I can keep shaving it off. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena#Fog

File:20180925 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck Women Elite ITT Tayler Wiles 850 8594.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 15:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author-- Granada (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot!--Biser Todorov (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have to agree with Biser. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing background --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Granada (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn too soon. Please consider unwithdrawing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really striking photos receive a lot of pro votes in less than 24 hours, this will not succeed. --Granada (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would succeed because it only needs 7 supports, but I would oppose personally, because the composition is not so great (compared to that one for example) -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-withdrawal oppose Do you need more convincing? The cyclist's pose is great but the car at right rear is just way too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for retaliating. --Granada (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 or 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ardea herodias standing on a rock at St. Pete Beach.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 21:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created by Grendelkhan - uploaded by Grendelkhan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing to say against showing an animal in its natural environment, but in this case the subject is not well separated from the background without any need for it (IMHO), making it harder to see the quite interesting silouette of the bird. The worst part are feathers on the bottom of its beak that are of very similar tone as the water reflections behind it. E.g. a lower angle would have cleared the background up a lot and provided more presence. – Lucas ^T 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite good IMHO. Yann (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. The fact that the background is somewhat blurred gives sufficient separation, and the bird is quite well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cannot compete with the many Ardea FPs. Charles (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas - for an FP the detail quality of feathers and beak is imho not sufficient. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas -- Karelj (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per Ikan Kekek. She animates (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. The guidelines state "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote.". This account has been created yesterday and this is only the second edit -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hippasa holmerae (Lawn wolf spider) in its funnel web.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 01:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Lycosidae_(Wolf_Spiders)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support while I would also like a closed crop. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good picture. Unsharp foreground is regrettable but unavoidable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes I think a closer crop and I'd rotate to get the eyes level, but that's a matter of choice. --Charles (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done below. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Rotated and cropped version from the previous comments, Yann, Ikan, Isiwal, Charles, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical quality not great, but I like the composition. It's not easy to find the spiders in this position. Charles (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support even better! I would not have rotated it, but that's a minor concern. Spiders walk upside-down all the time. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

with this sort of shot there's no 'correct' orientation because you're usually scrambling to get the shot and not thinking about keeping the camera horizontal. --Charles (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wish you could get in even tighter, but I think this is as far as you can go in that direction without making technical compromises. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Probably better overall than the other version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both versions are good, according to me. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Hippasa holmerae (Lawn wolf spider) in its funnel web (2).jpg

File:Symmetric view of the staircase at The Fullerton Hotel Singapore.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 02:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice wide view, highlights tastefully handled. There are some slight asymmetries but I think those are due to the building itself; I don't see how one could have done any better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, great motive, excellent technical realization. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the flowers, the only natural element, destroy nearly perfect "human made" symmetry. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#Singapore

File:Staraya Russa asv2018-07 various45 Railway station.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 07:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Interior of the railway station (built in 1956) in Staraya Russa, Novgorod Oblast ----- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support And in less than ideal light, yet! Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image feelt somewhat crooked to me and looking at the floor tiles confirmed it: the camera seems to not have been in the centerline and therefore a perspective error remains. I see this shift visually for the whole image, not just the floor tiles. – Lucas 21:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good picture, but the floor seems to be bent and following the tiles, is is somewhat tilted, in addition the groundline of the pillars is not horizontal --Llez (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tozina (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#Russia

File:Long shadow of a dead tree with its branches on the dry fields of Laos - landscape.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 02:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great light and colors, and using the shadows + cleared tracks as leading lines is a nice idea, but I feel like the lines don't lead anywhere. The focal point is too centered and consists of some random trees; of course the rule of thirds can be broken, but I don't see a compelling reason to do so here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons why the rule of thirds was not really possible here is because of my own shadow, visible from another angle, and also because the main subject really was this shape. I've nominated this landscape format version basically because it is a landscape, but now from your feedback I wonder if the portrait version below is not a better choice. Thanks for your opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think it has the makings of a good photo but agree that everything points towards the upper centre, where they eye finds nothing much. This reminds me of my File:Tree Shadow - Hitch Wood.jpg where the tree shadow consumes enough of the image to become the subject, but it had its own flaws. Here the tree shadow is not dominant enough. Btw, I wish we could comment against a centred subject-position without citing the discredited "Rule of thirds": it's a myth. -- Colin (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info portrait version -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite your baseless revenge vote that it is in my eyes. --Hockei (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain after the comment above. I'm not here to fight with anyone, neither to get my "bad" pictures promoted by users throwing insults. My nominations are not the place to promote an indistinct spider that 3 reviewers opposed for only one support within 3 days. Anyone can look at my votes, I've opposed here 8 times for 8 different people very recently. Be bold, and also expect that from others. I prefer a no-vote than a fake "angel" sending a wrong signal. Improve, don't be too proud of yourself for no reason. Better sometimes to withdraw and nominate better images -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is weaker than the other one. -- Colin (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de Cristo, Windhoek, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 19:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Christ church or Christuskirche, Windhoek, Namibia. The church, built beween 1907-1910 and designed by architect Gottlieb Redecker, was originally known as the Church of Peace as it was built following the wars between the Germans and the Khoikhoi, Herero, and Owambo. It was constructed from quartz sandstone mined from the vicinity and has a mixture of neo-Romanesque, Art Nouveau and Gothic revival influences. After the feedback I got in the just closed and failed FP nom of this subject, looks like this one could have a higher chance to pass the bar. All by me, Poc o² 19:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question The file name and spanish description use “Winhoek” without a “d”, but the spanish Wikipedia article has the “d”. Which is right and for which languages? Also, IMHO, FPs showing real places should include location information (GPS coordinates). – Lucas 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lucasbosch: fixed, thanks! I oversaw that typo in the filename, I also added the geodata, --Poc o² 09:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco² The spanish description still has the missing “d”, or is this intentional? – Lucas 11:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, sure not, Lucas, gone, thanks --Poc o² 11:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but this works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support here we go --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful building with great colors. Composition-wise, however, I feel that a 1.55x aspect ratio is too wide for such a square building; it feels like it doesn't have enough room to breathe on the top and bottom relative to the sides. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice light. But I am not fully convinced by the crop / composition: Is it possible to uncut the black-white strip at the right foreground and choose a less central composition? --Tuxyso (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso: Unfortunately I cannot expand the crop at the bottom and regarding the proposal to crop left or right, I am right now not sure about it. I've a bunch of opinions in this and in the former FPC and before I start offering several alternative I'd like to see how this FPC turns out --Poc o² 21:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've gone back and forth with this picture a few times. I wish it were possible to show the black and white curb all the way to the edge of the picture, but the church is beautiful and photographed in what I consider good light, and except for that detail, the composition is working for me. I think this is good enough to be worth featuring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I propose to crop a bit at the left side -- Llez (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me, sorry. For me, the other one was better. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Río Tanana, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 158-170 PAN.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 19:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of a landscape at the banks of the Tanana River near Tok, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highlights too bright on the clouds and a yellowish cast that gets more noticeable at the edges, where it's also very unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: I've "cooled" the image a bit, reduced the higlights and cropped a bit on the left. Please, consider that this image spans over aprox. 200 degrees and therefore it's to expect that the dynamic range is pretty big with strong shadows and highlights. The same applies to the "sharpness". When taking an image like this you focus manually to a spot (in this case the other side of the river) so that the focus does not change from frame to frame (in that case you'd have problems to stitch the panorama or diferences from frame to frame would be visible). The tradeoff is that items that are either further or closer from the focus point would not get the same sharpness. Btw, the image is made of 13 frames and has 135 MPx --Poc o² 10:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totaly cool. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition does not work for me. Besides: The bridge at the very right of the image looks strangely curved - possibly due the the panoramic projection choosen here. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm a fan of panoramics. :) MartinD (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. -- Karelj (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. The distortion here is too much and the view isn't mostly very interesting. -- Colin (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergweg tussen Andiast, Ladinas en Breil-Brigels (actm) 16.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 16:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural #Switserland.
Info A small artificial lake, beautifully situated in the Graubünder alps.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A QI for sure, but as an FP it doesn't work ... we have the hazed mountains in the background, and this oddly-cropped half of a waterbody in front. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- even better Seven Pandas (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is too static, with no foreground interest to lead the viewer into the center of the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. Also I don't think this is the most picturesque subject (artificial lake, concrete) when we have beautiful alps all around. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he accidentally voted twice.Seven Pandas (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that makes a difference, I had to strike it through...--Poc o² 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etang du Pla de la Font 07.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 14:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, noticeably greenish cast that seems unnatural. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I find your newer nomination much better. This is a good photo, but I'm not bowled over by the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scheßlitz St.Kilian Orgel 1012571-HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2019 at 13:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Organ loft of the catholic parish church St.Kilian in Scheßlitz. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great processing. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like a lot of things about this photo, but I'm a bit frustrated by the discrepancy between the left and right margins. Why couldn't you get the photo truly symmetrical? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The optical axis does not coincide exactly in the geometric centre of the building. Symmetry can therefore not be created later on the computer. As a guideline for the balance I have chosen the stairs on both sides. Personally, I find 100% symmetry not desirable either.--Ermell (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I certainly don't always demand symmetry, but I didn't like the bit of a column on the right vs. more of the column on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few technical remarks: 1) The windows are not bright enough, resulting in an flat "HDR" look. Let the whites blow out because there's no detail to be found anyways. 2) Please crop off the white bit in the lower left corner. 3) The perspective has not been fully corrected; it's still sloping in. 4) There's some asymmetry, per Ikan. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now a corrected version. Thanks for the hints.--Ermell (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like this better, but could you add back the outside of both flights of stairs? I think this tight a crop is not quite optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the reviews.--Ermell (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry that I have to oppose here. Technically very well done image, but for me the scenery is not ready for FP, as it is now. This church needs some fresh paint. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Le comte Ory - Dubois & chez Martinet - Final scene.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 22:40:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Dubois and chez Martinet - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The usual dirt cleanup, a slight level adjustment to bring out the white ink, which had faded a bit towards the paper tone. There's at least two copies of this on Gallica, for instance, File:Rossini - Le comte Ory - dernière scène - Cela doit se taire - Dubois del et sculp.jpg is not the same image, but they're quite similar. This one has additional documentation at the bottom, and I think is a little better painted, so I chose it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OSE 220 029 Kifera.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 21:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail vehicles
Comment The old line between Aggeie and Domokos is about to be shut down and replaced by a new high-speed line (background) some time this week. This looming change combined with an unusual amount of snow were the reasons for a quick visit. This photo shows two Adtranz diesels hauling a HellasSprinter with IC 52 Athens - Thessaloniki over the last stretch of old, single-track line that's still in use.
Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Cayambe (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A feast for the eyes. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would like to see more categories. – Lucas 06:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The categories refer only to the train. There is still room for improvement.--Ermell (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! —kallerna™ 11:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice at screen size, impressive quality at full resolution. Perfect settings -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A Greek railfan photo ... not something we usually see. And in winter, to boot! Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 14:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piling on. --Yann (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That red and yellow bridge really helps the picture, though of course there's a lot more to it than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo, historical value. MartinD (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 32 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail vehicles

File:2017.06.03.-33-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Schlanke Bernsteinschnecke-Paarung.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 19:41:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much glare from the flash, and not really that sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Hockei (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leichtathletik Gala Linz 2018-5746.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 20:13:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I consider all four women to be the subject here, so the left one being cut off partially is a no-go for FP. – Lucas 22:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas - the scene contains all four, even though the two on the sides are to the rear and a bit out of focus.--Peulle (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas and Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Cristo, Winhoek, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 02.jpg

File:Wallabia bicolor eating from hand, side view.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2019 at 00:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info all by grendel|khan 00:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 00:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, looks like fun but not a great composition to me (for example, the wallaby's mouth is blocked by the human's hand in this view), and parts of the wallaby's face are not very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary and the quality is not exceptional -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --MB-one (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2019 (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: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2019 (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: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common kingfisher in Japan, January 2019 - 谷崎7303.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 22:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Alcedinidae
Info created by 谷崎かおる - uploaded by 谷崎かおる - nominated by 谷崎かおる -- 谷崎かおる (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- 谷崎かおる (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 22:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Need Background noise reduction (i uploaded another version, however, I rollbacked it because it need your approval, and if you think that its good you could keep this version on top). BTW, remember keep the camera and lens information in the exif when you are exporting the image for review purposes --Photographer 22:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO problem! Your background noise reduction is very nice. Nothing lose of details. I reverted to your version, thanks! --谷崎かおる (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Photographer: Reprocessing from TIFF with exif. --谷崎かおる (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support though I would consider a narrower crop with not so much space at the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a good picture, but for FP, I think it really should be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should cut the right part to improve the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: Done --谷崎かおる (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --谷崎かおる (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You withdraw too early in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: OK, I unwithdraw it. --谷崎かおる (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine details. Thank you! Tozina (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite perfect. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 00:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — 1989 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Witsand, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-23, DD 112-118 PAN.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 19:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the beach of Witsand, South Africa. All by me, Poc o² 19:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The highlights feel blown to me. Would you consider dialing them back? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I echo Colin's comments in another beach shot down below: I don't think the particular point you're standing is sufficiently interesting, and making it a wide panorama won't change that. The town at the left with the rocks jutting out into the ocean looks like it could be a winning composition if you moved further down and to the left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ikan is right about the highlights, and King is right about how fixing them won't make the image featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, thanks, Poc o² 20:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlos Valderrama 2016.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 07:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Biser Todorov - uploaded by Biser Todorov - nominated by Biser Todorov -- Biser Todorov (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The artificial vignetting is quite disturbing, especially around the head included on the left of the background, that really seems to be part of the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile; also not very sharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not quite giving me the wow sensation.--Peulle (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trier Quant 1 Milliarde.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2019 at 12:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Issued by the City of Trier (1923), designed by Fritz Quant (1888-1933), reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those were the times, I have even a banknote of "50 Millarden Mark" in my drawer --Llez (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Pomegrate 2019.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2019 at 17:53:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by User:Mydreamsparrow - uploaded by User:Mydreamsparrow - nominated by Mydreamsparrow
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request Mydreamsparrow, please make these a set nomination – Lucas 18:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Lucasbosch I don't think these fit the requirements for a set. They are just three arbitrary compositions. I think Mydreamsparrow should decide which one is their favourite and nominate that. -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

File:Pomegranate juice with slice.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2019 at 17:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by User:Mydreamsparrow - uploaded by User:Mydreamsparrow - nominated by Mydreamsparrow
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request Mydreamsparrow, please make these a set nomination – Lucas 18:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think these fit the requirements for a set. They are just three arbitrary compositions. I think Mydreamsparrow should decide which one is their favourite and nominate that. -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

File:Cayenne Coq place du Coq.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2019 at 16:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI, yes, but doesn't stand out enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Daniel -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Tomer for your interest in this image.It seems not to be up to the standard of FP. :-) --Cayambe (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.04.30.-11-Froschkanzelsee Lorsch--Veraenderliche Krabbenspinne-Weibchen-mit Beute.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2019 at 17:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice shapes, but I don't like the blurry leaves in the near foreground and the spider and its insect victim are also not sharp enough. In short, I find this an interesting picture for sure but not a great one as a single image, though if this were a video capture, the video might be quite good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indistinct arachnide -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely colors, but per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is sharper than in this picture --Hockei (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vittoriano Quadriga della Vittoria Roma 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 20:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me the CAs have not been fixed yet -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Fixed CAs. Thank you --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clouds, especially that blown area, are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's the part I like most, it gives drama --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For the Moment; needs some perspective correction: the lowest part along the bottom is exactly horizontal, but from tier to tier it is more and more inclined to the right --Llez (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why should I correct the horizontal lines? The image is not tilted and the lines above the horizon go to a far located vanishing point wich ads depth to the image.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This works for me, it's grand, the light in the background is an interesting contrast and the verticle wisp of cloud is in just the right place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual, well handed lighting gives the image extra ordinary drama that I like very much. I also like the DoF! --Podzemnik (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Chapelle, Brussels (DSCF1087).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 20:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Belgium
Info by User:Trougnouf
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice sky and sharp photo, also nicely labeled for VI, but I find the composition uninspiring, a largely random selection of buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you prefer File:Église_Notre-Dame-de-la-Chapelle,_Brussels_(DSCF1071).jpg which is centered on the church? --Trougnouf (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes. Looking at both at full screen, the other one has a composition that works for me. I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I nominated the other one and improved it slightly, thank you! --Trougnouf (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not like the sky and weather/light conditions. Also the roof in the foreground is disturbing. The scenery gives no wow to me. -- -donald- (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support --Trougnouf (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this sufficiently similar to be nominated as an alternative? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe so, because if we were to remove the part of the frame that doesn't overlap then this one would be missing a band that's about 14% off the left, and they were taken 4-minutes apart. --Trougnouf (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - If so, I support this as an interesting cityscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per donald, above. Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afternoon at Tennfjorden, Raftsundet, Hinnøya, Norway, 2015 September (02).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2019 at 16:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition and great interplay between foreground and background. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - File:Afternoon at Tennfjorden, Raftsundet, Hinnøya, Norway, 2015 September.jpg is an existing FP, and in fact the first photo I nominated at FPC. This one probably also deserves the designation, but I think it's fair for people to keep in mind the existence of another similar FP of the fjord. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the information, but I think both photos deserve FP status and are imho completely different in motive and composition. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - They're visibly related, but I think they're both beautiful and both deserve the star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 08:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — 1989 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 19:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alexandre Fragonard - Scène de L'orage (Barbier de Séville).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2019 at 20:12:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Alexandre-Évariste Fragonard - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think this is one of those subjects we cover in a lot of languages, but didn't have a lot of images for. Please help spread it, if you could. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:15 quai de la Poissonnerie in Colmar.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2019 at 07:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for me, sorry. -— King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This building might be featurable, perhaps, but not in this dull, gray light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. -- -donald- (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was foggy day. Tournasol7 (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catopsilia pomona (Emigrant butterfly) on Tagetes lucida.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2019 at 08:13:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae_(Sunflowers)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compared to this FP of the same butterfly on the same flower, I think this one has much better light, a nicer background, a larger depth of field, and 3,3 times more pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This same exact butterfly? Wow ... how do we know these things?

Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how do we know this is a Catopsilia pomona, because we ask specialists

and because Wikipedia is here of course :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Forewing completely out of focus. Jee's photo should not have been promoted to FP in my view. Charles (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your review looks a bit familiar . At least, the back wings are sharp :-) But compared to yours, I think the flower also makes the difference -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the flower is pretty, but the back wing is also very blurred. I think the difference between our two nominations is that mine is in focus, but has less a bit less definition as it is a close up of a tiny butterfly. Charles (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree yours has less definition, but on a creative level its aspect is also too ordinary in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a portrait. It's a such a pretty and rare species (unlike Catopsilia pomona!), I don't think it needs a flower to make it interesting. And it lives in a forest where there aren't pretty flowers anyway... Charles (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a VI, yours -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This also looks like a delist and replace nom to me.--Peulle (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is a female . But you can delist it if you want -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I don't think either of these should be FP. Not enough is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FP the other one, no, but this one yes, definitely. It's a composition of flower and insect. Could even be nominated in the category plants, I think. Very sharp the butterfly, 75% of its elements like crispy (legs, belly, back wings, head...) I think this is much more artistic than most of the other FPs focused only on the animal or on the plant with nothing else -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point about the flower. I'll cross out my opposing vote. But I don't really think the butterfly is sharp enough to support this for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have this butterfly sharp "all the way" too, but prefer this picture with a better bokeh. We have a lot of butterflies with blurry flowers, this one on the contrary is a nice Tagetes in focus with a lepidoptera in focus too, and just a minor part of it out. The flower is nicely open, attractive with great color -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that one and would probably vote to support it for FP if nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In terms of composition, Jee's is the better photo. This one seems unbalanced, centred, and the background has intrusive lines. I suggest you experiment with a crop. -- Colin (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped it to a square, but the main problem in Jee's Catopsilia pomona in my view is not its composition, but really its harsh light, and also the lack of details. The background here is better I think, and the orientation of the flower also -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; Jee's is the better image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly. But not at all . Jee has captured several excellent pictures of butterflies, unfortunately this one is certainly the worse of them... At least on this point I agree with Charles and Ikan it should not be FP. It was not good at the beginning promoted in 2012, but in 2014 another version has been uploaded with even worse light. Very harsh, IMO, and blown highlights. The tips of the flower are hard yellow, and compared to mine, the body of the animal is dull with absolutely no texture -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I have changed the category to Plants, since we already have a flower with insect there, we can renominate later this similar combination of flora / fauna, but now it's such a bad start I chose to close it -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uyuni 4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 06:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kallerna —kallerna™ 06:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 06:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite work for me with this light and those big cacti up close.--Peulle (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Peulle. Yann (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request I quite like the feeling you get by the close cacti of them being all around you and the bus in the distance is a nice touch to remind of civilisation. I'll gladly support if the filename is changed to something more informative and GPS info of the camera location is added. – Lucas 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I changed the name and added the camera location. I am bit surprised for the votes, IMO the composition and light are much better than the existing FP from the same "island". —kallerna™ 10:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support – Lucas 16:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It lacks colors and the crop is too tight on both sides -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cacti in front are so distracting I'm afraid of zooming into the picture lest I get poked in the eye. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macropus rufogriseus with joey in pouch.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 05:56:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info all by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think I prefer File:Macropus rufogriseus with joey in pouch grazing.jpg, though I don't guarantee I'd vote to feature it. This is a large photo for a wildlife photo, but it's not that sharp. The other one is sharper, and it also has more generous crops, which I think is good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 16:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I can see why you wanted to take it, but it just doesn't quite come together enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Pleasing flow of composition from upper left to lower right, well lit, neutral background, not too posed but also not so candid as to obscure details She animates (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. The guidelines state "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote.". This account has been created yesterday and this is the first edit -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The composition is nice, but the quality is not. The depth of field is really too shallow. With this light, much more details could have been captured with a smaller aperture. Even at the focus point the best parts of the animal are not sharp. The light is harsh, acceptable but not particularly appealing, especially at the bottom where the contrasts are very strong. Valuable image but not among our finest, because overall it's too blurry -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile and my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gottfried Christoph Härtel.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 11:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller - uploaded by Rettinghaus - nominated by Rettinghaus -- Rettinghaus (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rettinghaus (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question But what is the medium? It looks like a lithograph or something. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending your addressing Daniel's question in your file description. I find Mr. Härtel pretty ugly, but he's important (all classical musicians are familiar with Breitkopf & Härtel), and this is a very high-resolution reproduction of a good print. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Exceptional scan quality --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Hemidactylus frenatus (Common House Gecko) on white background, focus stacking.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 07:27:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Hemidactylus frenatus (Common House Gecko) on white background, in Laos. Focus stacking from 20 pictures shot in studio. Created by User:Basile Morin - uploaded by User:Basile Morin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Geckos are really small, so this picture is kind of absurdly big and detailed, and it's pretty crazy that Basile was able to focus stack a living creature. I see a little motion blur only on part of the tail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks more like it wasn't neatly stacked. I also find the crumbs disturbing, especially the fly leg. Has the gecko just had breakfast?--Ermell (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it's a stacking error, I'd like to see it be taken care of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Not sure I understand well the problem with the focus stacking job, as I handled it very carefully and really don't see major problem here honestly. I've uploaded a new version with the very minor issues corrected, please add a note if there's something else I've missed, but yes Ikan is right it is not easy at all to photograph a living creature so close and to make 20 shots at different focuses in these conditions. So for the tail not completely sharp I agree but I'm afraid this is not improvable. Focus stacking is a choice, otherwise f/32 would not be as sharp, nor as detailed with this DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, Ikan, for the nomination. Reasonable size to look at IMO 6 Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geckos can keep still for a long time, waiting for a prey, but still... Really amazing work! --Yann (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's true. I've observed them doing that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm fairly impressed by this focus stack of a living creature and would support it as such, but there are too many out-of-focus areas on the center of the skin and around edges to consider it FP quality. I'm positive this could all be fixed by careful, but more involved cloning work. – Lucas 16:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This work is a composition of 20 pictures, not 30, since it was not possible to take more shots without the gecko starts moving. At this moment the reptile was breathing, which means the shape of the stomach was evolving in time, and thus a very special rhythm had to be followed for each picture. It's not as easy as with an inanimate object. If I had these parts available in focus, certainly the composition would be more accurate there, but now they're missing unfortunately, because of the manual procedure. Creating a fake object with artificial patches coming from different areas is not my taste, and would not be better on a realistic level. So I keep it with its minor technical issues. The technique is mentioned in the description, so the viewer should understand why there are soft areas. You can't invent the pixels, especially on the edges : they're just not here, when you focus on the foreground, the background is blurry, and when you focus on the background the foreground becomes half opaque, over, due to the scale ratio proportionate to the distance, and also due to the irregular texture. It's mainly an optical obstacle, certainly similar to every subject of this nature. But this resolution is large enough for excellent quality prints. If it's too big, we can downsize it at 2000 px large, 2500 px large, 3000 px large, and even 3500 px large, still acceptable in my view. But requesting extreme sharpness here like a knife blade is a bit nitpicking IMO. This coleoptera had its back leg totally out of focus because the animal moved too early, and the resulting picture was however a big success in FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas, the various patches of blur on the tail are rather obvious and cause the image to look strange. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just imagine the gecko moved its tail a little little bit -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas too many out-of-focus areas. Means the stack is not well done. All in all it is not very sharp, I miss contrast and the subject is too bright. The composition isn't appealing for me because of the "white" background and this unnatural environment. --Hockei (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's very sharp at lower resolution, and all is sharp, from head to tail. The white background is a choice (like here or here) to present the animal in its morphology. It will be perfect for captions like this, for example. Although I find pictures of animals in their environment very valuable, one kind of photography doesn't exclude the other(s), I think. Concerning the lighting, it couldn't be better IMO, diffuse lamps illuminate every part and also avoid harsh shadows -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting a focus stack of a living thing to be tack sharp in every part is strange to me. The level of detail is amazing. If you think you can do better, please do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's an impressive feat, but for 17 MP full-frame you can go to f/16 with very little diffraction, allowing you to capture it with the same number of frames but with much more consistent sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, there's a visible difference between f/8 and f/16, but the main problem with large DoF pictures in focus stacking is the amount of errors generated in the process, even with the excellent software Helicon Focus I use, the sharp patches overlay, creating frequently undesirable ghosts -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is a pretty useful image. And a lot of work behind it, too. --GeXeS (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - minor imperfections aside, good quality and very useful image. Renata3 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). (d.j.b.) 25.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 06:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #The Netherlands
Info Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). Stormy wind and heavy rain showers above Langweerderwielen.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing interesting, depressive, no wow at all. -- Karelj (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinarily, I'd go for neutral as this image is a little bit more reddish than I'd like. But ... in this case it sort of makes it work better. I am reminded of some paintings or an artist or genre of art; I cannot remember which. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The road in front ruins it for me, and it also seems to be tilted --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very minimalistic art piece, or a random shot in the country? The second aspect prevails a bit over the first for me. I love paintings of C. D. Friedrich, for example, but this is nowhere near that, sorry. --GeXeS (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Emotionally conveys the state of nature -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like a random shot in the country, no wow, not sharp. Renata3 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pörtschach Promenadenbad Blumeninsel Pappeln 08122018 5598.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 08:40:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine quality and appealing composition. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creative composition, but pity about the cut-off tree on the right side; any way to fix by cropping more or less on the right? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I can only offer the following alternate version. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better – Lucas 16:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful, very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine 4 me, but I wouldn't mind the 1st version either. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support O verticality! Not totally perfect, but overall I look at it and feel the chill of a coming winter. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — 1989 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Pörtschach Promenadenbad Blumeninsel Pappeln 08122018 5604.jpg