Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2020

File:2017.08.26.-01-Mannheim Wallstadt--Gruenes Heupferd-Weibchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2020 at 13:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Tettigoniidae (Katydids or bush crickets (UK))
Info All by me. I now decided to nominate this pictures of the series, even if it is not as big as the others that I nominated and withdrawn. But there are no disturbing plant steams in it and the antenna is not cut. -- Hockei (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better. Charles (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would make my cardinal hungry ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Tettigoniidae (Katydids or bush crickets (UK))

File:Holi Bonfire Udaipur.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2019 at 13:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fire
Info created by Imehling - uploaded by Imehling - nominated by Imehling -- Imehling (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Imehling (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dramatic picture. Can you add a proper category? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've specialized the category "Holi bonfires in India" to "Holi bonfires in Udaipur". --Imehling (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean the file's category on the file page; I mean the featured pictures category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure myself what category fire belongs in, but since this isn't fire as a natural phenomenon, there may be some kind of category for religious rites or celebrations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't do that so often. I hope "Featured pictures/People#Events" is ok. There are images of religious celebrations in this category and I've found nothing better. --Imehling (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can we take that wire or whatever across the front out? Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes, we can. --Imehling (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, now that the wire is gone. Very dynamic. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not greatly wowing me for whatever reason but I think it's deserving and interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment undecided on this one. I think for me the main issue is that for this to depict a particular kind of culturally significant fire/event rather than some other flame, I'd want to see more context in the photo. For example, there are some people there in the background, hard to see except at the edge of the frame. A wider shot to get more of the event in the frame would be good (of course, then it would be hard to get the full flame -- and they're not so conducive to panoramas :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the people are hardly visible in this image, it doesn't belong in the 'People' category. All fire photos (if the fire is the main subject) belong in 'Natural phenomena#Fire' regardless of how they started, by humans, nature or divine intervention (take a look at the other photos in that gallery). I've fixed to category now. --Cart (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not an excellent picture for me. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fischer.H, I don't think that's explanatory. You should say why it's not excellent, or what you think isn't excellent about it. Note that I'm not saying you're wrong in your evaluation, just that what you've stated doesn't explain your vote any more than the oppose symbol with no text afterwards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’d just read it as "no wow". --Kreuz schnabel 15:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, probably, but then that should be stated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my opinion, too good for an excellent picture and partly blurred. --Fischer.H (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too good? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Grande roue de Montréal1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2019 at 15:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info: all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support symmetrical. The photo could have been sharper at the top.--Famberhorst (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I agree it could do with a tad more sharpening at the top. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kind of cold, but it really couldn't be otherwise given the subject and colors. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good pic of a Ferris wheel, but I don't understand how it is FP-worthy. No wow, and the side crops are very tight. --A.Savin 21:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ a bit too trite, sorry. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today I think that's me who is trite and boring. Nice image. But it lacks a litlle thing, maybe a better light. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, more or less per A.Savin (though I don't find the side crops very tight). I feel like the tricky thing about this kind of photo is that to be great, the positions of the pedestrians should aid the composition. I don't think they do in this instance, which makes this photo certainly IMO good but not exceptional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO the image was taken to close to the ferris wheel and the random crowd in the foreground disturbs the scenery, resulting in an overall generic look. There are plenty of great shots of the Grande roue de Montréal taken on top or even behind of the bridge leading to it. The blue sky works quite well with the snow-covered environment, but I think the ferris wheel will look great under almost all light conditions (blue hour, golden hour, sunset, sunrise, etc.) Definitely worth a second try! Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ikan Kekek, Christoph Braun, I can't quite agree with the criticism regarding the presence of a (relatively small) group of people. This is a major tourist attraction in Montreal, and to expect that no people be present, as if it were some sort of pristine wilderness, is a bit counter-intuitive. If anything, it would make the scene look sterilized and post-apocalyptic. I believe the people are well-integrated into the scene: they occupy only a small portion of it, nobody is cut off and nobody is obscuring any part of the main subject. I really don't see how the people are any more distracting than the conifer trees, for instance. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Cosmonaut I didn't say that I expected the absence of people. A well-positioned single person, a small group or a couple can improve the composition and provide a sense of scale. In this case however, the pedestrians look rather generic. Furthermore, thanks to technological advances like ND filters, even crowded places can be photographed without people in the final image. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Braun: the ND technique would require the exposure time set to a few minutes to remove the slow-moving objects, like pedestrians. For this very brightly-lit scene with lots of whites, it would mean having the smallest possible aperture, which would inevitably lead to degradation of the image quality. For me, it doesn't seem like a meaningful sacrifice just to clear a very small part of the scene of people. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmonaut Changing the aperture won't be necessary with the appropriate ND-filter. A similar outcome can be achieved by taking multiple shots of the same scene and blending them in Photoshop/GIMP. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Braun, true, that would work, but the question of the necessity of it remains... Do you have an example of a FP, where the presence of tourists in a very touristy place is not generic? I linked to this photo below, and I honestly don't see any difference. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmonaut That's exactly why I would have voted against that one as well. Here are some examples where integrating people into a composition went rather well. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Braun: well, at least you're consistent :-) And yes, these are good examples. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmonaut QED. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted very clearly what I thought about the people, which is not that it's a problem there were people in the photo. I really can't see how I could have been much clearer, other than if I suggested a specific position of people that would help the composition (but why on Earth would I do that?), but if anyone is sincerely confused, tell me what language seemed confusing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, you nominated this image, and it passed with no opposition (deservedly so). Would you care to elaborate how the specific position of the tourists is different? It's every bit is as random and generic. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course these things are very subjective. But I don't agree with you that the positions of the people are equally random in that photo. They are along the sides and in the front, thereby actually helping the form by working with the lines. The only one who damages the composition somewhat is the woman in the near left, but she is still not really in the center, and the five tall spires on either side have such a strong effect on the viewer that the damage is greatly attenuated. In taking a photo of a ferris wheel, you inevitably have to be further from it, so that the people come between the camera and the ferris wheel in a way that's different in degree and even arguably kind than is the case with the photo of the top of the Milan Duomo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you read the comment I wrote when nominating that photo? "Daniel Case has been taking many photographs that either focus on the tourists or fit the paradigm of 'landscape with people'. In this case, the people are much less important than the fantastic tall spires on the duomo's roof, but their presence creates a rhythm for the viewer's eyes, so neither he nor I think it damages the composition, and it's also a way of acknowledging the elephant - or, well, crowd - in the room, which is not always best to ignore." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how the distribution of the tourists, who are predominantly on the left and in the centre, with barely anyone on the right, aids the very symmetrical architectural theme, but I appreciate you taking the time to express your view. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's essential for there to be exact symmetry of tourists in that situation. I judge photos mostly by how I can move my eyes around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no wow effect for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iifar. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-04, DD 49.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 09:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Spain
Info Castle of Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, Spain. The castle was built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop and stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory. The castle was never conquered and was successfully defended against the King of Castile in the 13th century. The successful completion of the Reconquista at the end of the 15th century ended its military significance. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bottom right is too dark for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Famberhorst: I've brighten it a bit Poco a poco (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but I still think it's too dark at the bottom right.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, Famberhorst, it doesn't matter when you take the picture, that shadow will be there --Poco a poco (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added a note of the part that I find too dark. This is my personal opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness and highlights the imposing nature of this fortress. I can only see one other FP, also by you, which is very different in composition and subject. Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me, the light is everything. This is an interesting subject but the light is quite ordinary. Part of the building is in the shadow. Maybe night / early morning shot / stormy clouds could work. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Am I right that the wall in the shadow is the north side (see google maps) which will never get full sunlight but is nearly always in shadow? --Llez (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right Llez, those rocks are heading to the North and indeed, I call them rocks because they are IMHO not part of the castle, which is built on them. Poco a poco (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support No chance to get the wall in sunlight --Llez (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit too trite, sorry. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fun and sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik and Christian, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no reason for me to FP nomination. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felsriegel auf der Milseburg.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 11:14:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info Rocks on the Milseburg, view to the west. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support something over-processed. But nice picture for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks oversharpened at the bottom, and I don't like the dark area. Btw, the correct gallery is "Places/Natural/Germany". --A.Savin 21:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lovely view but I agree about the oversharpening. Cmao20 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Illustration, Boulevards de Paris, 1846 - David Rumsey.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2020 at 09:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boulevards de Paris by L'Illustration, journal universel – PNG version: 98,647 × 5,933 pixels.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created by L'Illustration - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This historical document is in very poor condition and no attempt to restore. Our FPs are much finer than this. It is large but it is also rather artificial in construct, and half the image can only be viewed by performing a rotation which is not trivial with such a large file. The people do not seem correctly proportioned to the buildings and the colouring is somewhat drunkenly applied. -- Colin (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philemon corniculatus 2 - Glen Davis.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2020 at 07:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fierce expression and good focus on the eye -- Axel ^(talk) 13:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the crop. Above too tight and on the left it is too much room. --Hockei (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC) I turned to neutral. --Hockei (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very sharp image of about 2/3 of the bird, whose head seems very dinosaur-like to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with Hockei on the crop. It would be stronger if the bird was moved to the left a little. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh! that gradient ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect quality and composition. --A.Savin 18:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cyrtodactylus oldhami, Oldham's bow-fingered gecko.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2020 at 15:54:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Gekkonidae_(Geckos)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, background dark and unsharp and thus too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find it too dark, and the gecko itself is very sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: too much empty space on the left, would support a cropped version. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The lead room is good for me. The darkness could be reduced a bit, but it is not my main problem. It is for me as always the DOF. At least the head should be complete sharp. Unfortunately it isn't. --Hockei (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilderness of the forest.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2020 at 09:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created & uploaded by AlexSchoo - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question A wonderful composition, but could you please upload the full resolution? Thank you. --XRay ^talk 11:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @AlexSchoo. Tomer T (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong vignette applied in Lightroom. Heavily over-processed, especially saturation. And 6MP. -- Colin (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those "forest primeval" pictures I wish I could have taken. I forgive the vignetting (although it doesn't need to be quite so obvious) because it generally enhances the effect. Saturation? Maybe juiced a little bit, but I've walked through real forests like this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice mossy rocks, but Oppose more or less per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose outstanding composition with good light, but per Colin. --Ivar (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like a good mossy rock, but the vignetting ruins it for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin. Vignetting can sometimes be a creative thing, but here it's a bit too overprocessed and artificial - the kind of photo that would do well in WLE but that doesn't make it FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Hohenwerfen, Werfen, Austria, 2019-05-17, DD 115.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2020 at 11:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
Info Entrance to castle Hohenwerfen, Werfen, near Salzburg, Austria. The medieval rock castle, situated on a 623 metres (2,044 ft) precipice overlooking the town of Werfen in the Salzach valley. The fortress is a "sister" of Hohensalzburg Fortress, both built by the Archbishops of Salzburg in the 11th century. c/u/n Poco a poco (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it could do with a bit more sharpening at the top, but it's a spectacular shot. Cmao20 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I haven't seen these kinds of strange diagonal relationships of elements in castle construction before. I'm assuming this is a view one would really see from the same angle, but I want to double check: Those aren't artifacts of some kind of perspective correction, are they? If this part of the castle does look like this, that's quite interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what diagonals you mean, Ikan Kekek, but it looks quiet loyal to reality to me. You can have a look here. Poco a poco (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, Poco. That Google image showed conclusively what I wasn't able to confirm in other images. I'm considering the sharpness now, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imho low wow factor, sharpness at upper part is not good, postprocessing signs between the castle and sky. --Ivar (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloemknop van een Magnolia. 02-08-2019. (d.j.b). 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2020 at 16:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family Magnoliaceae
Info Flower bud of a Magnolia covered with raindrops. (After flowering in August).
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- great effect with the rain. Seven Pandas (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me it is too noisy. Also the contrast could be slightly higher. --Hockei (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Hockei: Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info As I see you have just brightened it instead to increase the contrast. So you've lost colours in the bright areas. The denoising is hardly visible. I've made a test version (not perfect) of your first jpg-file. If you want write me your e-mail address so that I can send it to you. Maybe you want use it for comparison. But beware, I give no guarantee that the other viewers find that better. ;-) --Hockei (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Johann Jaritz: Thank you for supporting this photo. But the photo was already supported by you on Dec. 29. Sincerely.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The new version looks good though the noise could be still a bit more reduced. I wonder why you didn't inform about the new version. --Hockei (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family Magnoliaceae

File:Michelfeld Klosterkirche St. Johannes 8151485-2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2020 at 22:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Interior of the former abbey church St. Johannes Evangelist in Michelfeld in the Upper Palatinate. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I enjoyed vicariously visiting this church through your photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely high resolution and very beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, but please have a look at the suspended lamps on the left. There's some rather heavy CA. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW. --Gnosis (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin Falbisoner --Llez (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pettstadt Panorama Nebel -20191219-RM-105122.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2020 at 08:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Germany
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark Seven Pandas (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sphere but unfortuntaley too dark --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what you mean but it doesn’t really work. Very noisy too. HDR processing might do. --Kreuz schnabel 06:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Ermell (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramic of Capdenac-Gare.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2020 at 08:58:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary scene and lighting, no wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helmmycena (Mycena galericulata) (d.j.b.) 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2020 at 08:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created & uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - File:Helmmycena (Mycena galericulata) (d.j.b.) 06.jpg is already an FP, so I would think this should be offered as a delist and replace, if anything. Also, there are some dust or water spots to remove. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They're from the same photo batch, but I think they're quite different. Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't support it, because it's the same specimen promoted earlier ... the background has at least 20 dust spots --Ivar (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Ivar is right, there are quite a lot of dust spots, many of which especially on the right are quite clearly visible. Also I'm not wholly sure we need multiple FPs of the same species unless they are in some way very different, and these two are similar in angle and composition if not in background. Cmao20 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cmao20, dust spots were removed. Tomer T (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutral, in that case. Cmao20 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for nominating my photo. It is probably a problem that the same mushroom already has an FP status. That mushroom was photographed on 19-11-2019. This one on 20-11-2019. I am going to remove the dust stains and see how it ends.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. spots removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is better than the other one, so I'm supporting, although I'm not sure both should be FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support you for the nomination.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Site des Orgues 016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2020 at 11:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI, if that. Seems an odd crop. Random soil and harsh light. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Random soil? Here you can see, where the photo was taken. --Llez (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this. If these strange shapes didn't exist in nature, it would take someone very imaginative to invent them. As for the light, I think this motif benefits from a strong portrayal, and in no way does it look overly bright to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of originality --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imaginative.- Henry39 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agree with Colin, seems random crop, no good idea what rock formation I am looking at. Renata3 (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like the sky and ground were processed separately without smoothing the boundaries between them enough ... look at the odd CA on the sides of the upper rock that are in shade. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Corrections done --Llez (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the crop, I'm not sure how it could have been done much better. Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Colin and Renata. I don’t like the framing showing only an arbitrary small fraction of the rock. I’d prefer a whole view like this one. --Kreuz schnabel 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MacBook Air (Early 2015).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2020 at 08:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created by Ryan Morse - uploaded by Warren - nominated by Gamingforfun365
Support as nominator -- GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 08:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, "stylized" lighting, tight crop, far below technical quality of current FPs of static objects. Object is also very common.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BevinKacon. An FP of a static object can be done in a much more educationally valuable way, and the technical quality is unfortunately not sufficient. Cmao20 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination: As the nominator, I withdraw the candidacy of this image. I thought that this one might make a decent representation of Apple's products, and as others had pointed out, unfortunately I thought wrong. I apologize for the inconvenience, and I hope to find a better representation of a much more notable subject. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 17:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To do so, use the {{Withdraw}} template instead of {{Comment}}. --Kreuz schnabel 19:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.10.01.-01-Altrhein Altrip--Schopf-Tintling.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2020 at 19:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Agaricaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like how you did a closeup portrait of these mushrooms, giving them a strong presence, and the light helps, too. They look appetizing, so I was glad to read in the Wikipedia article about this species that they're excellent edible mushrooms when young. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Thanks. They taste really good. But I left this one alive. --Hockei (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI, definitely, but for me it's just a picture of two mushrooms. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but I agree with Daniel. Quite hard shadows and I find the background quite uninteresting so I'd prefer it to be blurred. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not excellent, especially at full view when the flashlight reflections become obvious. --Kreuz schnabel 07:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No flash used. Look at the exifs. Just sunshine. --Hockei (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old World swallowtail (Papilio machaon gorganus) underside Hungary.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2020 at 15:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Papilionidae_(Swallowtails)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 16:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant! Cmao20 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality and composition. Wow -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --92.53.53.160 11:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote per COM:FPC#General rules: "Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." --Cart (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Papilionidae_(Swallowtails)

File:Hygrocybe miniata - Ferndale Park.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2020 at 14:11:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Order_:_Agaricales_(Gilled_Mushrooms)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great focus, really beautiful mushrooms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent mushroom photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think it would be improved by cropping the dead space at left ... about a third of the image on the side really isn't doing anything but taking space. What's (ahem) left would actually be sort of Christmas-y (hey, it was shot during winter), which isn't something we think of mushroom pictures being. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, an unbelievably sharp photo. Cmao20 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Order_:_Agaricales_(Gilled_Mushrooms)

File:Perereca- macaco - Phyllomedusa bahiana.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2020 at 21:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created & uploaded by Renato Augusto Martins - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know it is relatively small, but the composition is amazing. -- Tomer T (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does anyone know how big this frog is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Stretched out, about 6 inches for this adult Monkey frog. Fits in your hand and would be considered medium-sized. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image - --GRDN711 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 05:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Great pose. Charles (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question From the EXIF, this appears to have been taken during the day using natural light with no flash. Has the uniform black background been added? Charles (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you download the image to say Photoshop and crank up the saturation to max, you will see that it is not a uniform black background. Instead it is dark blue with green specs all over it. It is very easy to take an image like this if the subject is in strong sunlight. Please compare with this image taken at the base of a hedge with the flowers in a beam of sunlight. I had to bring out the background from raw or it would have been totally black (since I know some people here have trouble with very black backgrounds). If I can do such shots, I'm sure other photographers, better than me, have no problem taking similar photos. --Cart (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Your image is nothing like this one. I had already opened it in Photoshop and reduced shadow and it is a completely uniform background. As is the case with a number of this photographer's images. There may be a technique to achieve this, but you are nowhere close. There's no rule saying he can't play with backgrounds, but I'd just like to know in this instance. Charles (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim my photo was as good as this, just on the right track, a pointer to how this can be made. You are often taken what is written too literally. If you reduce the shadows, you will see a uniform background. However, playing with saturation will reveal what colors may be hidden in the darkness. Hopefully you will get a full explanation from the author. --Cart (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good focus to the frog --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending the resolution of Charles' question. If the black background is artificial, it was very well-done since it doesn't seem that way from pixel-peeping. But that doesn't mean it wasn't. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --92.53.53.160 11:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote per COM:FPC#General rules: "Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." --Cart (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Altino Arantes and Others 2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2020 at 15:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Brazil
Info created by Donatas Dabravolskas - uploaded by Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not on board with the perspective on that centre building. It just looks tilted to me.--Peulle (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and Fischer, plus that building looks overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this. It's not subtle, but it's definitely striking, and the image quality is good. There are a couple of flaws - overexposure on the central building and some tiny bits of purple CA here and there - but overall this is a dramatic, high-resolution and well composed photo. Cmao20 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly an interesting idea but doesn’t work for me either, too random composition and overexposed central subject per others, causing too harsh contrast. I won’t mention the strong CAs for they might be unavoidable on a wide-angle like this. --Kreuz schnabel 07:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Thank you! --Andrei (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christ's Entry into Brussels in 1889.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2020 at 07:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others
Info painting by James Ensor (1860—1949) - uploaded by User:Gmagno - nominated by Spinster -- Spinster (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic painting, 5 Wikipedia articles about it, newly in public domain since Jan 1, 2020; megapixel digitization.-- Spinster (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive painting, very sharp reproduction, however I'd prefer to see its original rim or frame. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --92.53.53.160 11:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote per COM:FPC#General rules: "Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." --Cart (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 02:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wiesbaden BW 2017-04-24 21-07-29.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2020 at 08:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created by Berthold Werner - uploaded by [[User:Berthold Werner|] - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, crops (top and bottom) not well done. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe not the best angle from which to photograph this interesting building. The composition seems a bit random with some arbitrary crops and some distracting objects included in the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo Bay (AU), Beach -- 2019 -- 170804.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2020 at 18:16:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose An interesting image, but I don't really understand what it's of, and it's unsharp in too many places. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be happy for more input, positive or negative. Tomer T (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pingüino de El Cabo (Spheniscus demersus), Playa de Boulders, Simon's Town, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-23, DD 12.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2020 at 15:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Sphenisciformes_(Penguins)
Info A sharp, high-resolution shot from Poco's trip to South Africa. There are only two other FPs of African penguins, in both of which the penguins themselves take up a very small portion of the frame. This is a much better illustration of the species. Created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can’t stand up to the FP level of bird photography. Distracting background, harsh light, lower part unsharp. There’s no rule to feature a pic only because there are worse ones of the same subject already featured :) Btw, the first of your competing pics deserves a delist IMHO. Blown whites, poor resolution, and heavily oversharpened. --Kreuz schnabel 16:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20 and thank you for the nom! Poco a poco (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. -- Karelj (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. Good but not exceptional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks everyone; this isn't going anywhere though. Cmao20 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoya carnosa1.jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2020 at 20:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Gentianales
Info: same subject as this with improved brightness, shaprness, contrast and less leaves. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely sharper than the last one. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better than the last one, but I still don't feel any wow. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly QI but not much wow for me either. I especially don’t like the glaring flashlight reflections and the small size (for a still subject). --Kreuz schnabel 16:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Better, but not exceptional. Not one set of inner petals(?) seems totally sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kungur asv2019-05 img27 Ice Cave.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2020 at 14:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia
Info Long Grotto with an underground lake in Kungur Ice Cave, Perm Krai. All by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice colors and compo, but imho postprocessing has gone too far (details are washed out). --Ivar (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful place. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar, and also compositionally it seems too limited in scope but also too busy in what it does include. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jüterbog 25 Pfg 1920 Hl Geist Kapelle.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2020 at 09:27:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created & uploaded by User:Palauenc05 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a particularly beautiful example of a Notgeld banknote, in my opinion, and of course it's extremely well photographed as usual for Palauenc05's photos of this type of currency. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 23:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 02:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Theloderma corticale - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2020 at 09:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 23:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Halo? I've added a note. Charles (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. It gives the impression the frog is loosing its green pattern in the water -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2018.01.05.-37-Pont de la Caille--Seil-Spannvorrichtung.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2020 at 11:28:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very interesting shot but you weren't very lucky with the light conditions that day. Cmao20 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, neither the lighting nor the crop do convince me. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really sure how this is supposed to work. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri. -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bryggen, Bergen, Noruega, 2019-09-08, DD 118-121 PAN.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2020 at 13:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cylindric panoramic view of about 160° of Bryggen, city of Bergen, Norway. Bryggen is a series of Hanseatic heritage commercial buildings lining up the eastern side of the Vågen harbour. Bryggen has been on the UNESCO list for World Cultural Heritage sites since 1979.
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed one of my favs in Norway, thank you for the nom, Tomer T! Poco a poco (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A geocode would be nice and perhaps a mention in the description that the street is actually perfectly straight; in the photo it looks like it was taken on a corner. --Cart (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, Cart, Done and info added also here Poco a poco (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Small question: With panoramas like this, where a distortion like this might not be the best thing for the accuracy of the image, have you thought about not taking all the photos from the same spot, but rather place the camera in front of each house along the street, or something like that, and later merge them? I have done that on some occasions (this is one) and you get a more true perspective. --Cart (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cart First of all, I like this kind of perspective, it may be "less encyclopedic", but I enjoy it; secondly in order to reduce this distortion I need to use more mm and for that I need to go further (or alternatively do what you did, taking a picture in front of each house), but IMHO none of these 2 options were practicable, because therefore I would have had to go further to the back, which wasn't physically possible or I should have gone closer with lots of distracting elements, specially people (and which is surely more tricky to stich to a pan later on). Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unpleasant distortion, weak light --A.Savin 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image and it looks like a lovely place to visit but regrettably I think the perspective distortion is just too weird. It's a good depiction of the location for documentary purposes, but if this is the only way to capture the whole shopfront in one picture, then for FP I'd really prefer to see a single frame focussing on a smaller bit of the street; it would be more aesthetically pleasing. Cmao20 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like two of the buildings - Bryggen Besokssenter (apologies for not using the o with the line through it) and Knut Skurtveit - aren't vertical. I assume this is accurate, but I wanted to mention this for your comment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao. Maybe a spherical panorama would have been cool at that place instead. --Domob (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hozomon with visitors under their umbrellas, a rainy day in Tokyo, Japan.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2020 at 01:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite work for me; grey light, lots of people (including the somewhat disturbing ones in front).. --Peulle (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Kreuz schnabel 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the symmetry, and this would be a good illustration for Tourism in Tokyo (in fact I will put it in that article), and a good QI but it doesn't rise to FP level. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely good enough quality for QI, but the light is IMO not interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Dunstan-in-the-West Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2020 at 15:59:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info An interesting church in Fleet Street, London, constructed in the 1830s with a peculiar and striking octagonal lantern tower. Nowadays it's a joint Church of England and Romanian Orthodox church, which is really interesting, and there's plenty of orthodox-style art visible here. Captured with the usual Diliff quality. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the off-center angle on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a church interior, it's quite good but IMO not outstanding in comparison to what we already have on FP; and "only because it's Diliff" doesn't work with me, sorry. --A.Savin 14:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:The Cannery Seafood of the Pacific by Don Ramey Logan.tif

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2020 at 01:12:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Cannery Seafood of the Pacific reflection

Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Places/
Info created by Don - uploaded by Don - nominated by Don -- Don ) 01:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Don (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without even looking at the full resolution I can tell you that for a photo like this, the resolution of 2,7MP is too low to impress me.--Peulle (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, but the darker sky at the top breaks the illusion almost immediately. Maybe add some ND filter (simulation) to the sky half or brighten up the water half? It has a slight surreal feeling to it due to some "impossible" angles and some things seemingly missing in the top half due to perspective (btw, phone/power poles: cloned out or really not visible?). But I'm not sure the effect is strong enough to "make" the image. In any case, I prefer the flipped first version over the later rotated versions, as it keeps the letters in the logo readable. --El Grafo (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Striking reflections but I agree with El Grafo that it looks a little bit surreal and unnatural. I find the colours a bit too bright, and the image could also do with a perspective correction. Cmao20 (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wahkeena Falls October 2019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2020 at 03:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top parts of the waterfall in the distance make it special. Nice atmosphere too. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wowed me --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 02:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 08:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tamischbachturm with snow from east.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2020 at 11:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Steiermark
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the light and peaceful atmosphere of this shot (and of course the mountain itself, especially from this point of view). --Domob (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but while the light is lovely, I think too much of the image is soft.--Peulle (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I might have been able to forgive the softness, but the vertical composition here seems to me at odds with the natural inclination towards a horizontal here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case, and maybe also too contrasted with low wow factor, since we have a lot of (better) images of this kind already -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and bright parts (which seem the most important ones here) are overexposed. This is not at all an easy light to work with. f/10 already causes visible aperture diffraction on an MFT system. --Kreuz schnabel 16:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice shot, but it is a tiny bit soft, and I agree with Daniel about a horizontal composition being more appropriate here. I like the light though. Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks all for the feedback! I'll make sure to use smaller f-numbers in the future. I've chosen the portrait orientation because it was the best in this case to show the mountain and focus attention to its summit (which is the interesting part), as that was my main goal. But I see your point about it not being ideal for FP here. --Domob (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Австралійська райка велетенська (Litoria infrafrenata).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2020 at 21:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created & uploaded by Vasyl Krasnoshtan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, Wow nice capture, the shadows are a bit too dark but still nice. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much going for this one: sharpness, reflections, depth of field, too dark, too sleepy. Charles (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacks sharpness -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Afraid I agree with the above. Nice capture but not as sharp as some of the similar pics we've seen recently, and not as high-resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rue des Marchands depuis le Koïfhus (Colmar) (4).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2020 at 10:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 10:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 10:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice evocation of the Christmas season. Cmao20 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dodges the non-FoP issue with the lights nicely in that no single display stands out from the others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 08:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lights play. --Hockei (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pretty but not amazed though, Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Christmas spirit has almost won me over, but I wish the whole chimney of the building on the left were visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but I don't have more. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 08:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figured so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.10.15.-25-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Koecherfliege-Limnephilus rhombicus.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2020 at 09:11:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice form and composition. How big is this insect? Happy New Year! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember how small it was. It is a random photo and it's a long time ago. Up until yesterday I thought it has been a butterfly, lol. Happy New Year! --Hockei (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Light's a little harsh, but it still works. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose usually JukoFF (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The harsh light and the average quality make this picture quite ordinary in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question - Hockei, is the category as specific as it can be? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing suitable found. --Hockei (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ellerberg 1274451.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2020 at 07:57:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info Long-term exposure at the Ellerberg in Franconian Switzerland. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite an adventurous shot. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the structure of the clouds really natural (see annotation)? It looks partly like remastered with with a brush tool. --Llez (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They look like this all over the sky at full view. I don’t think it’s natural. --Kreuzschnabel 18:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info The camera can be used in the "Live Comp" mode where only additional light is recorded. This makes the movement of the clouds visible.--Ermell (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support Thanks for the explanation. I was irritated by the metadata (exposure time 1 sec.), for clouds (and cars!) don't move in this way within one second --Llez (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely, well-executed idea. Cmao20 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those clouds look indeed awkward but I the compo is great Poco a poco (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 02:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's amazing so much change took place in 1 second. Very nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually it’s a live-composited image at a base exposure of 1 sec. Once that first exposure is taken, only each "new light" is added to the frame, that’s how the trails come in without brightening the surrounding. The entire compositing may take several minutes, even hours (e.g. for star trails). --Kreuz schnabel 06:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So since we already have 'star trails' and 'light trails', we can now add 'cloud trails' to the vocabulary. :-) --Cart (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dendrelaphis caudolineatus, striped bronzeback.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2020 at 14:03:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Order_:_Squamata_(Lizards_and_Snakes)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is oversharpened. --Hockei (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The oversharpening is not only visible on the tongue but around the whole head. Strong! I don't see the slightest reason to tolerate it considering the great composition. This fault has nothing to do with the composition but it is a homemade mistake and can be corrected very easily. I'm convinced that is sharp enough nevertheless. Maybe you don't matter about my rejection but it won't cares me. I'll support this picture if this is corrected. --Hockei (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Of course I respect Hockei's eye and opinion, but my reaction is that the head is sharp and the form is great. So if it's not perfect, OK, but it's an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question I wonder, looking at the reflection in the eye, Rushenb, if this is some sort of set-up shot? Charles (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Charles: would you care to explain closer, what do you mean? --Ivar (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo in the jungle of a Thai National Park, but there are made-made items (possibly tables?) in the reflection - so I was curious. Is this a laboratory-type set-up? I visit hundreds of forests and I never ever see snakes out in the open like Rushenb manages (very jealous). What's the secret? Are the snakes captured then released for the photo? Do you know why the images are all credited to Thai National Parks. 17:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Charles (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really see tables on the eye reflection? I see same leafs, where the snake lies. --Ivar (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot see non-leaf straight lines, Ivar, download at full res. and have a closer look. Charles (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, not long ago Rushenb left an explanation about the credit at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boiga jaspidea, Jasper cat snake.jpg. Thai National Parks is his website and he chose to credit it on his photos just like you do with your website (example). --Cart (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hadn't realised that Thai National Parks is a website run by a tour company. Charles (talk)

Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan--Ermell (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very much sharpening applied here (visible on the tongue), still tolerable considering the great composition --Kreuz schnabel 07:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe slightly oversharpened, but it's really not a major fault IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Order_:_Squamata_(Lizards_and_Snakes)

Maps of Paris in 1380 by Henri Legrand & ALPAGE, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2020 at 18:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Paris in 1380 by Henri Legrand
Paris in 1380 by ALPAGE, after Leuridan & Mallet

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Europe
Info Two maps of Paris in 1380, the old map by Henri Legrand and the vector map by ALPAGE (Diachronic analysis of the Paris urban area) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is a "set". One is a historical pen-and-ink map in great detail, and the other is a self-made SVG. They aren't even the same orientation or cover the same area. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The impressive Bled Island.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2020 at 13:11:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created & uploaded by Giladtop - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice scene, but small and somewhat noisy. I don't think this is one of the finest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition very much, it breaks all the rules by putting the (presumably) main subject at the top right rather than in the centre, but it works really well. What I'm not keen on are the colours. I've never seen a sky that blue in real life, and I struggle to believe it's accurate to reality. In fact the saturation as a whole looks too much, and there's some clipping in the blue channel. Cmao20 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but the colors are too saturated for me, --Fischer.H (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hopelessly overprocessed. Just look at the horizon line, or the trees on the hill to the left. --Kreuz schnabel 20:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Facies tears of man.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2020 at 23:50:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Organic
Info Facies of human tears. Panorama, dark field. Objective 10x. /// Created by Arseniy1109 - uploaded by Arseniy1109 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this a tear, such as people cry, or is it a cell torn off of someone's face (using the other meaning of "tear")? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the tear that pours from the eyes :) JukoFF (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it's the use of "facies" that is a bit confusing here — I only know it from geology (and there seems to be a medical use in English), but in Russian the word Фация seems to have some other uses as well. Maybe we can find some better description. I think what we see here is a drop of tear fluid that has been left to dry, allowing the dissolved salts to crystallize and form interesting patterns (some more examples in this article at telegraph.co.uk) - correct? --El Grafo (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Absolutely right. I would be very grateful if you correct the description. JukoFF (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated the description accordingly. --El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really that impressed by a round gray object on a black background that looks like lots of other round gray objects on black backgrounds. Also, yes I know it was taken through a microscope, but we have plenty of other microphotographs without that level of CA near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fascinating, but as Daniel says, there appears to be a lot of purple chromatic aberration near the edges of the crystals. Could you please get rid of that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Застенчивость кроны.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2020 at 00:04:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
Info Crown shyness /// Created by Vladislav Nekrasov - uploaded by Vladislav Nekrasov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The English description seems wrong to me. I have no idea what "shyness of the crown" would mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info "Crown shyness" is a scientific term. It basically means that the crowns of individual trees of some species do not touch each other, leaving a bit of a gap in-between. I've added a link to the English description. --El Grafo (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for teaching me something I didn't know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting scientific concept I hadn't heard of before, and this is certainly a good illustration of it, but the technical quality is unfortunately too low for FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Interesting texture and would make a great book cover, but Cmao is right. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but it might be a useful VI if nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. Might indeed be a good VI (depending on the competition). --Domob (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larus michahellis in Farnese Gardens 05.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2020 at 08:00:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family : Laridae (Gulls)
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Beautifully sharp eye, but can you get more definition into the white feathers? Charles (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is somehow too bright for me. Also it could use a little more contrast. --Hockei (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's too bright, but it's natural. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like it just doesn't give a duck ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --92.53.53.160 11:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote per COM:FPC#General rules: "Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." --Cart (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely photo and very sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sorry Tournasol. Maybe it's just me, but it looks like the highlights were heavily blown-out, then edited heavily in post-processing, causing the color to be rather weird. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Charles, the feathers have more definition on some of the photos we promote here, but enough of them are sharp, IMO, and I love the beak and the eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gerifalte. The brightness of bird and background doesn’t match somehow. Bird should be much brighter in comparison. Looks to me as if the bird has been cut out of an entirely different image taken in different light. --Kreuz schnabel 16:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family : Laridae (Gulls)

File:Lund Cathedral 2017-08-17 4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2020 at 10:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, it's a good, valuable photo, but I don't find this great compared to photos of other church interiors, because of the random tourists doing random things, and parts of the ceiling aren't that sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unsharp ceiling, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suspect Colin would himself no longer see this image as an FP. It's certainly not bad and deserves its QI label, but given the competition within the church-interior genre it no longer makes the cut in terms of resolution, detail or sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the ceiling is blurred (could be cut out). I disagree with the fact that the tourists are, so to speak, spoiling the picture. There are many excellent photos with emphty churches. These churches look like dead. But churches should be there for the people. Therefore I think that the presence of people should not lead to devaluation! Je-str (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't mind church pictures that have people in them. Either with or without is fine for me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue that there are people in the photo. The issue is that they are doing random, distracting things - scratching their back, taking photos - and the ghosting is somewhat problematic, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Compilation of seeds with elaiosomes.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2020 at 09:33:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Seeds
Info created & uploaded by User:Hans Stuessi - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this quite an interesting picture, and I like the forms of the seeds. My only question is whether you will find all of the seeds to be sharp enough and otherwise well enough photographed, but I leave that to your judgement. Also, please help me with categorization. I tried Plants/Seeds, and that didn't work. Did I do this right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks impressive on first sight. But there are some issues (which can be corrected): The masking is not the best, see especially the outline of the upper right, but also in some others. The lower left has a rectangle frame which is not as black as the rest of the picture. There is no indication about the size of the seeds. Is it the same in all or different? Also the knowledge of the size is necessary for the judgement of the quality of the picture: A seed of 2 mm is more difficult to get in high quality than a seed of 5 cm. I also miss the Metadata. Because of these questions and issues I will wait with voting --Llez (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, needs a lot of work which is a shame. Charles (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Hans Stuessi, would you like to try making the suggested fixes? Please let us know. At first I withdrew, but I see you last edited on December 30, so Happy New Year, and I hope you can work with us. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per issues raised by Llez, who would certainly know. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Unfortunately, it looks like User:Hans Stuessi hasn't been around to see this thread. Thanks for your reviews. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.10.15.-24-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Herbst-Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2020 at 19:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Aeshnidae (Hawker Dragonflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not one of your best - sharpness/definition and background. Charles (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles ... I think I see what I thought you saw but it just didn't come through. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info You're right that the sharpness isn't one of my best. On the other hand I like the composition very much. The dragonfly just above the water surface surrounded by reed and ready for take off after laying eggs. This shot was not easy too. The distance was relative high. Sun hardly came through and it was almost impossible to find a gap between the reed for this shot. So I decided to nominate it. --Hockei (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Châteaux du Pays cathare - Château de Peyrepertuse - 02.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2020 at 08:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice object, quality photo, but composition is not spectacular for me. --Grtek (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grtek: A cloudless blue sky certainly suggests pleasant weather for the photographer, but it sits there and doesn't help the composition, so I find it good but not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan--Ermell (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really like this harsh light, and agree with others -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019-11-30-Marienallee Dahlem-7978.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2020 at 17:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia
Info A subtle image, perhaps, but one that impressed me with its composition, light, and mysterious atmosphere. created by Superbass - uploaded by Superbass - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 02:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gute Stimmung, gelungene Komposition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Poco a poco (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Delleboersterheide, natuurgebied van het It Fryske Gea. (d.j.b) 20.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2020 at 20:05:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created & uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Golden light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a great album cover (reminds me a little of Bob Seger's Against the Wind) Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful light --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the presentation of my photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great lighting, and the centered composition works here for me. What I don’t quite like is the noise on the animal and background. --Kreuz schnabel 16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removed spot. Thank you for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support That's lovely. The light is really good here; I don't find it too noisy, and the sharpness is fine. Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The noise on the horse should be reduced. --Hockei (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm usually not keen on centered compositions but the pose of the horse does match the composition in this case Poco a poco (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vue d'Étretat.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2020 at 10:56:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#France
Info View of Étretat, France. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Charming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant, interesting composition with a lot of things going on everywhere. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik; this really gives us the feel of a popular seaside spot in season. Perhaps there's a bit too much sharpening, but the tradeoff is well worth it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Makes me want to visit this town! MartinD (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice and I'd support if the buildings on the left are not leaning in anymore Poco a poco (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Buildings with colorful neon street signs at blue hour, Shinjuku, Tokyo.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2020 at 01:59:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can easily forgive the slight distortion at the sides and minimal motion blur when so much else has gone right with this one. Very difficult to make this sort of shot work as well as this ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's really outstanding! Is it a single photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just one shot, ultra wide angle (11 mm full frame). Thank you very much -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent! MartinD (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the many advertisements. But the picture is extremely authentic. --Milseburg (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The scene is great but some people are heavily distorted Poco a poco (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunset in Enoshima Island.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2020 at 16:00:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Dandy1022 - uploaded by Dandy1022 - nominated by Dandy1022 -- Dandy1022 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dandy1022 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This nomination was not properly transcluded. I have reset the clock. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what you were going for on this one, but the composition doesn't work for me; I don't like the random bit of building intruding into the frame on the left, and the composition is quite cluttered with lots of blurry objects in the foreground. I think it would have been better to find a more scenic spot to shoot this sunset without so much man-made clutter regretfully in the way. Cmao20 (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Peulle (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-One of my first good attempts is far from reality. Thanks for the comment, I will try to improve based on your reviews.Dandy1022 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 19:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enoshima Island.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2020 at 15:59:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Dandy1022 - uploaded by Dandy1022 - nominated by Dandy1022 -- Dandy1022 (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dandy1022 (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This nomination was not properly transcluded. I have reset the clock. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:59, 12 January 2020 (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. --Cart (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitsuike Park IMG 0082.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2020 at 15:47:09
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Dandy1022 - uploaded by Dandy1022 - nominated by Dandy1022 -- Dandy1022 (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dandy1022 (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This nomination was not properly transcluded. I have reset the clock. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but this is some way from FP quality, I'm afraid. The sky is washed out, the image quality is not the highest and too much of the image is in shadow for me. Perhaps it would be better to submit some of your images to Commons:Photography critiques to get some more detailed advice on what we are looking for at FPC, so that your future nominations have a stronger chance of success. Cmao20 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2020 (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: Unsharp, multiple parts under/overexposed.

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.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue Mountains National Park (AU), Three Sisters -- 2019 -- 1987-9.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2020 at 19:00:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 19:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 19:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pretty. There is one other FP of this subject, which is also nice, but this one has much higher resolution and better image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A very nice place, especially near sunset. This one was taken at this time. – I'm a little bit sad. It's a photograph taken last October. The last images saw of this place are full of smoke. --XRay ^talk 05:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful and impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the softness of the rocks and his plants so strong only in my eyes? --Hockei (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May be. I'll check and improve the image... tomorrow. --XRay ^talk 19:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The softness may be excused for. We can’t expect crisp sharpness on a 36 Mpix frame IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 20:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Hockei. Weak support now Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. At 50% (9 MP) the bottom unsharpness is mostly gone, so I'll let it slide. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Hockei and Daniel Case: I just improved structure and details. --XRay ^talk 06:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --Hockei (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Great shot but I've to admit that I enjoy this endless panorama views rather in landscape/panorama format Poco a poco (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corvus corone Bob 20190916 t170115.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2020 at 19:10:43 (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 A very sharp and high-resolution shot of the head of a carrion crow (corvus corone). Looking in the FP category for the Corvidae family, there are several FPs of various crows, magpies etc., but none of this particular species. There are head portraits of the hooded crow and the jungle crow, which are both pretty good, but this is a different species, and higher-resolution than both. created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the bird is impressive, but the background appears to be false - check out my note where the green covers the bird's feathers - and also check out the reflection in the bird's eye which might indicate there was an urban background. I do hope I'm wrong and that the photographer can put me right. Charles (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The background is very real—I haven't got the technical chops to create it if I wanted to! Some ideas why those areas of the picture look that way: green fringing from the macro lens I used, perhaps, though this file is normally corrected for that; feather barbs are very thin in worn plumage.
- There is an urban background indeed: the bird was perched on a railing closing a small courtyard in the Jardin des Plantes, a botanical garden in Paris hosting the main campus of the French National Natural History Museum. I know this crow very well (he eats from my hand), which is why I can approach him very close, with a 105mm lens. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks very much for the explanation. Charles (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shar4p focus to the bird --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, colors, and very high resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, and thanks for the explanation, Jastrow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Grtek (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way we can see your reflection in the bird's eye (Too small to categorize on that basis, but still pretty cool). Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Corvidae_(Crows,_Jays_and_Magpies)

File:African_penguins.jpg, delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2020 at 22:28:52
Visit the nomination page.

Info Delist reason: Far below FP standards – low resolution, oversharpened / contrast overdone, birds way too small and partially overexposed, unfortunate composition IMHO emphasizing the foreground. If nominated today, this would earn an FPX within minutes. (Original nomination)
Info This picture has already been tried to delist two times: [1] (majority for "keep") [2] (5 "delist" votes, no "keep" votes)
Delist -- Kreuz schnabel 22:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Charles (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This isn't so bad to me. I think it's fine to keep it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the feet being cropped Ikan Kekek, the horizon is tilted. Charles (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bit hard for me to understand why you prefer this image over that one which you opposed. Well, matter of taste I fancy. --Kreuz schnabel 21:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't prefer it. That's a new nomination. If you intend for me to have the same standard for delists as I have for new nominations, I would probably propose for a majority of FPs promoted before a certain year to be delisted. But do you really want to take the time to do that? Therefore, I support only delistings which seem really obvious to me. Maybe this one should seem obvious, but does it matter? Nope. It will be delisted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Unsharp low-res picture, ~~and furthermore, the white balance appears too yellowish to me~~. --A.Savin 10:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Ivar (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is not one of the finest images on Commons nowadays. Not by a long shot. --Peulle (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on delist per nom, A. Savin and Peulle. Since Wikimania 2018 we've had a lot better images of the Boulder Beach penguins; those of Paco's that we haven't promoted are nonetheless way better than this. Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kreuzschnabel, Charlesjsharp, King of Hearts, A.Savin, Iifar, Peulle, and Daniel Case: I'm not sure if you're aware that after the last vote for removal the image has been edited quite a bit by Archaeodontosaurus. This is not the image that was voted on 3 times in the past. So just in case you missed that, maybe consider if a revert to this version would maybe change your vote? --El Grafo (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThanks for the hint. Indeed, the version pointed out is not quite as bad as the latest one, at least not that aggressively sharpened. Still I don’t think it’s more than QI as for composition as soon as the horizon tilt is fixed. --Kreuz schnabel 12:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- +1, the Archaeodontosaurus version is a decrease in quality and should be reverted ( Done now). But nonetheless, it's a low-resolution image and not FP by current standards. --A.Savin 12:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Do you think we should remove the FP designation from all photos that are too low-resolution to pass now? If so, that should be done by a bot, because we're not going to want to spend time voting on every one of them individually, I would think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This scenery is really not as interesting for me that I would say "still featured despite resolution". --A.Savin 16:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh come, Ikan. Even today we would feature an 800×600 px image if only it had tons of wow, wouldn’t we? The minimum resolution is a "should", not a "must". So what’s this talking about automatically removing all lo-res images regardless of their wow? OTOH, if you could make a bot to detect and measure the wow in an image and judge it against resolution, we could just close FPC down and let the bot decide on today’s nominations too within one second. Even more, we wouldn’t need nominations at all, just let the bot look over any freshly uploaded pic and feature it on the spot. Interesting idea :) --Kreuz schnabel 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that made me laugh out loud. But in practice, very few of the FPs from back in those days would pass if judged by today's standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Even in 2007 the consensus to keep this was not overwhelming, and in 2010 not a single voter supported keeping. If the resolution were twice what it is, I'd think again, but at this size there is no way it can any longer be considered one of our best, especially compared to Poco's panorama of Boulder Beach. That said, I agree with Ikan Kekek that we need to have a proper conversation about how we should approach the classification of FPs that are nowadays too low-resolution to pass. I wouldn't support a blanket delist of all of them, because some have unique visual interest or rarity mitigating their lower resolution, but we probably do need a more consistent approach than we have at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist In this case, yes. --Hockei (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Tomer T (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist all technicalities aside, it's just not that great. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this one. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Cart (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Val Sinestra via Vnà naar Zuort. 16-09-2019. (actm.) 40.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2020 at 16:19:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Detail of the attachment of the suspension bridge.
Info Detail of the attachment of the suspension bridge (Punts penduossas Sinestra – Zuort) between Val Sinestra and Zuort. The beauty of this photo is, in my opinion, the metal glow in the mounting rings.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very good quality but no wow for me as described, sorry. Maybe it’s the distracting background. To draw attention to the metal mount, a piece of cardboard behind would have given a better background. --Kreuz schnabel 19:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Kreuz had said, the background is too focused and too distracting. On top of that, the subject of the image is a very common object, and ultimately I see no wow in the photograph as required by the featured picture criteria. It may work as a quality image, but I am not convinced it will work as a featured picture. Sorry. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 19:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overly tight crop, now even more so. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel --Fischer.H (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I think I see what you were going for and the idea is nice, but it just doesn't hold enough interest for me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support --Hockei (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the photo is not talking to me. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, {{{neutral}}} neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bubalus bubalis (water buffalo) calf, looking at the viewer, the feet in a pond, in Laos.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2020 at 02:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
Info Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yoda's ears :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. :-) --XRay ^talk 06:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great that picture is --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great photo, but I question the categories "Bathing cattle" and "Cattle looking at viewer", because a water buffalo is not a cow. I would delete them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment great shot, but I don't like the processing. As it is now it looks quite flat to me, both in terms of colors and and contrast, white balance rather cold. To some degree that's of course natural under cloudy conditions, but I think this one could be a much stronger image if it was edited for just a little bit more "pop". --El Grafo (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it's a bit washed out, needing tone adjustment or something. I don't know if pollution is the cause, like I found in Nepal. Charles (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the processing but the average light, because to face the animal, I had to chose a non-optimum angle. Agree it's a bit washed out, although the face strikes me. Thanks for the feedback -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitely the spitting image of Yoda, and strangely cute. Cmao20 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)

File:Person and red clouds.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2020 at 11:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Clouds
Info created by Grtek - uploaded by Grtek - nominated by Grtek -- Grtek (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Grtek (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful golden sunset and nice silhouette, but IMO not sharp enough considering it's only 7.5mpx. There are also a couple of very noticeable dust spots in the top right-hand corner. Cmao20 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dust spots removed, I am affraid it is all I can do...--Grtek (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cmao20, sorry. Just too unsharp. Are the colours real? Reminds me of this where they aren’t :) --Kreuz schnabel 20:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment natural, without any color correction.--Grtek (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pretty (ahem) unexceptional composition once you take in the colors. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:White-throated kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis fusca) composite.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2020 at 15:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And background color noise. Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noise reduced Daniel Charles (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I withdraw my nomination~~ Charles (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Charles, I don't know if anyone else agrees but IMO you were too hasty to withdraw this. Daniel and Ivar's criticisms are of course correct but for me they are mitigated by the strong encyclopaedic value of the shots (especially with the interesting captions you have added) and the impressiveness of capturing this on camera. A picture with so-so technical quality of a difficult event to capture is better than a picture of good quality of an easy, everyday subject. I would support this if you ever decide to give it another go. Cmao20 (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done thanks Cmao20. Charles (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Cmao20 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. I think this is good enough, considering how interesting and how difficult a subject this is, and also the size of the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:PatriciaSosaenconciertoMDP-0077.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2020 at 21:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 21:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough and I have my doubts about the perspective --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I felt this was good enough to be a QI, but it's nowhere near great enough to be an FP. Here's a performance photo I successfully nominated for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above--Andrei (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice snapshot for you to remember the event, and a decent shot for documentation purposes, but that's about it. Sorry, I'm gonna be brutal here: The composition feels unbalanced, with the entire top half showing nothing but the stage backdrop and the lighting rig. In the bottom half, most of the performers are hidden in the shadows. The singer is lit well and thus the one thing the eyes would gravitate towards, but 1) she's tiny, but over all picture quality does not allow for a tighter crop, 2) her expression/pose are not ugly, but also nothing special(have a look at some of the examples at Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events), 3) the piano player behind her is disturbing, 4) there's a blurry something in front of her legs. --El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. --Kreuz schnabel 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks!! Ezarateesteban 12:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baumweißling und Wegerich Scheckenfalter NSG Wittenberge-Rühstädter Elbniederung.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2020 at 16:22:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Is there a way to identify the allium by sight? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Ikan Kekek: It is a Chives (Allium schoenoprasum) --Llez (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks. Since User:Sven Damerow doesn't appear to have made any contributions to Commons since 17 December, I'll try making the correction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Super! --Gnosis (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top Poco a poco (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done, especially with the background. Cmao20 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like they're doing the butterfly equivalent of gettin' together for a cup of coffee ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dünnschaliger Kartoffelbovist-Scleroderma verrucosum-20191227-RM-154442.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2020 at 07:45:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scleroderma verrucosum in the Bruderwald in Bamberg. Focus stack from 21 frame

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Boletales (Boletes)
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Ivar (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As I said on QIC, this is a remarkable picture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Der deutsche Namensteil sollte auf Braunwarziger Hartbovist geändert werden. --Kreuz schnabel 10:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quatsch. Er ist das Gegenteil vom Dickschaligen K., also ergibt es einen Sinn. In meinem Bestimmungsbuch steht er auch so drin. Es gibt außerdem noch andere Trivialnamen. Ermell kann ihn benennen wie er will. --Hockei (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dateinamen auf Commons sollten den Gegenstand exakt bezeichnen, und der jetzige Trivialname wird auch für Scleroderma areolatum verwendet und ist damit nicht eindeutig. Ich kann alternativ auch damit leben, nur den wissenschaftlichen Namen stehen zu lassen. --Kreuz schnabel 12:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dass S. areolatum gelegentlich als Dünnschaliger K. bezeichnet wird, beruht lediglich auf eine Verwechslung mit S. verrucosum. Der Fehler liegt bei der deutschen Wikipedia. Die Bezeichnung Dünnschaliger K. sollte dort daher bei S. areolatum entfernt und auf S. verrucosum verlinkt werden. --Hockei (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Stunning work and at a really high level even for an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very good detail. The stuff on the ground, is it blue-black or is the colour balance wrong or some other reason? -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The material is bark which probably reflects the sky. This can also be seen in other mushroom photos.--Ermell (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 02:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the quality is good but the background and the centred composition don't want to appeal me. --Hockei (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with Hockei this time. The quality is excellent as on many of your other pictures, but the light, foreground and the background don't appeal to me very much. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Boletales (Boletes)

File:2016.05.28.-09-Leopoldshafen Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen--Aufrechte Osterluzei.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2020 at 13:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Oppose - Since no-one has commented on this, I'll say something: the flower that's the main subject is photographed very well, showing a nice texture, veins and everything. However, the complex bunch of other forms on the picture frame feel random and don't to my eyes and mind play well together. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral, Tromsø, Noruega, 2019-09-04, DD 61-63 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2020 at 11:48:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Norway
Info Interior of Tromsø Cathedral, Norway. The cathedral, the only one in Norway made of wood, belongs to the Church of Norway and is located in the city of Tromsø. The cathedral is a work of architect Christian Heinrich Grosch and was completed in 1861 after the diocese was established in 1844.. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have preferred a centered version and cut the top roof Support Well done now --Wilfredor (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wilfredor has a point. The roof is clearly slanting down to the right. I'm OK with part of the roof being there, but could you straighten it out? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor: FYI I've centered it and cut the roof off. Poco a poco (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, Wilfredor: I've straightened it out Poco a poco (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've restored my support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting church, captured with good sharpness and detail. The people don't bother me here as they look like they are probably worshippers. Cmao20 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the top bit adds to the image. Charles (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Charles --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that you are right, Charles, Martin, I adjusted the crop Poco a poco (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

very good now! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better. Have another look Wilfredor. Charles (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like this better, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chrysantheme rot tautropfen -20191024-RM-102058.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2020 at 10:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Suffice it to say, I find this utterly spectacular and was impelled to nominate it after seeing it at QIC tonight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, look how sharp the water droplets are. Cmao20 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 03:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, though my taste would be for a vertical stem. Charles (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wohohow. -- -donald- (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae

File:Lichenostomus melanops - Glen Davis.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2020 at 06:14:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm impressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment too much post-processing on the background for me. Charles (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Since I'm not alone in my views. Charles (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Charles. I'd expect to see this kind of processing of a bird picture more on 500px than here. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really excellent image of the bird. However, the post-processing on the background (see also part of your other bird images) somewhat bothers me. --Cayambe (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 03:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tæ 11:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Perereca - verde - Agalychnis aspera.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2020 at 20:13:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created & uploaded by Renato Augusto Martins - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really like the light in this one, sorry. The DoF is also not the best. --Peulle (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO light and dof are appropriate and it's a good portrait of that frog. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute frog but I don't like how so much of the picture is in darkness and the DoF could indeed be better. Cmao20 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018.03.03.-10-Mannheim-Vogelstang--Halsbandsittich-Weibchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2020 at 14:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rose-ringed parakeet - Psittacula krameri, female

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittaculidae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one. Cmao20 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I guess there's no more specific category for this bird? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, yes there is. If you click backwards through the categories for it you will end up at Category:Psittacula krameri where you can see it belongs to Ordo: Psittaciformes • Familia: Psittaculidae. The Psittaculidae is new for that order so it will have to be created for this photo. Still it is helpful to include it in the FP category for the person who will sort this (probably me...). I've fixed the cat for you. --Cart (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gletsjerpad naar de Morteratschgletsjer 12-09-2019. (d.j.b) 07.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2020 at 16:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info View of the impressive Morteratsch glacier (right part).
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail. Cmao20 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great scene but too much noise. Daniel Case (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If I really think about it, there is more noise on the right than elsewhere, so this photo is probably improvable, but the overall impression is excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small noise reduction on the right. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Grtek (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The WB could be adjusted a bit warmer. --Hockei (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Too narrow shot for my taste, I'd like to see more on both sides Poco a poco (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adelaide (AU), Botanic Garden -- 2019 -- 0675.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2020 at 18:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support Ideally it would not be cropped so tight, but there may be nothing the photographer could do about it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I definitely miss wow here, easy to shot, not extraordinary subject, conventional lighting, Poco a poco (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Crop is not wide enough for FP, IMO. Whether that was possible or not is not the point to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco a poco -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 20:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lochem, tussen de bomen in het Grote Veld IMG 3241 2020-01-01 12.38.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2020 at 22:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Netherlands
Info All by User:Michielverbeek -- Michielverbeek (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice, but why is it one of the best images on Commons? I'm just not seeing it. --Peulle (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Certainly pleasant, with nice light in most of it, but not IMO a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's an interesting idea going on here, but I think the composition is just too cluttered, there's too much going on. I also think you had the misfortune to be shooting at midday when the shadows are quite long and this means that a lot of the image is in shadow; the bottom left corner is entirely shadowed and I find that a bit distracting. Cmao20 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek --Fischer.H (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Certainly nice but not excellent. --Kreuz schnabel 20:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if it might do better with my suggested crop. Daniel Case (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I might like that better, but I'd have to see it to consider how to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Light and composition are outstanding enough for me to support. --Milseburg (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadow on the bottom left is a minus point.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lochemse Berg, omheining en bomen aan de zuidkant van de berg IMG 3200 2020-01-01 10.34.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2020 at 22:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Fog
Info All by Michielverbeek -- Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the post in the middle. Charles (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I take Charles' point, but I think on balance it works. Nice use of black and white. Cmao20 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. First, per Charles. Second, the post is very dominating the picture but it is neither interesting nor nice. Third, in generally the composition or better the view is very common. The quality is average even too noisy and the ice on the barbwire seems(!) partially overexposed. Sorry once more, it is not excellent in my eyes. --Hockei (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hockei. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Hockei. While the fence as such fits into the composition, the detailed foreground barbwire doesn’t and even looks menacing to the viewer. --Kreuz schnabel 04:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hockei. -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cat Sphynx. Kittens. img 24.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2020 at 14:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created & uploaded by Knopik-som - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I generally consider this breed of nearly furless cats very ugly and feel sorry for them, due to their lack of heat insulation, but this mama cat has a striking gaze. I think the composition is FP-worthy. However, I just don't think the photo is sharp enough to be one of the best on Commons. This seems like an excellent VI, though, in the scope "Female sphynx cat with her kittens". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. The composition is great but the depth of field is not high enough, too little of the photo is in sharp focus for me to support it. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castelnau de lévis.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2020 at 22:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#France
Info created by VisioTempus - uploaded by VisioTempus - nominated by VisioTempus -- VisioTempus (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VisioTempus (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Uninteresting light, strangely unsharp (oversharpened?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problem of light. Agree with Ikan. Also, the categories should not be included in this page, but in the file page. Please try to be more specific concerning the categories, because "france" or "landscape" are too general. You could describe your picture more accurately -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many problems: light, lack of sharpness. It is not up to the standards of FPC.--Dinkum (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also per Ikan. --Peulle (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2020 (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: too poor quality and lighting --Kreuz schnabel 09:03, 17 January 2020 (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, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antílope acuático (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 51.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2020 at 11:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
Info Exemplar of Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) in Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have had my eye on nominating this one myself. The back of the waterbuck is a tiny bit less sharp than the head, but ultimately this is a >40mpx image and still fairly sharp everywhere at full size, so it's the kind of content we are lucky to have. Cmao20 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to be disrespectful to your opinion, I do think this is a little harsh considering the high resolution of the image. To make my point clear, from this image one can produce this 10.5 mpx downsample which is sharp all over. To me voting against this image because of sharpness at 100% is just penalising the author for providing us with a full-resolution shot. Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cmao20, may I add something to that? This is a wildlife image and not taken in the zoo around the corner. It was also taken from a considerable distance, as this animals are pretty shy, and for that I had to use a 600mm and yes, as you say, I am offering a big file, namely, over 50 MPx. I don't find the image lacking sharpness, the shot had to be handheld and for that I had to increase the ISO a bit. Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment zoo or not, this image is not sharp. ISO 400 at almost midday sunlight should not have any effect on the result. FP should be the finest on Commons and imho this is not it. --Ivar (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Definitely sharp enough, IMO. My only issue with the photo, really, is a nitpicky one: I'd prefer for the waterbuck's face not to be partially criss-crossed by grass. That's a very difficult thing to avoid, but it's what's making the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's probably not sharp enough, but not enough for me to oppose. The grass in front of the face is not ideal. Hand-held 600mm must be tricky and probably explains the softness. Charles (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I don't have a problem with the sharpness, really, and the other technical issue I noticed (posterization on the nose and some CA on the droplets) is too small to be a problem. But this image just doesn't feel special enough, it doesn't stand out from other pictures of four-legged animals drinking from puddles in the wild. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angreifende Silbermöwe auf Spiekeroog, Nationalpark niedersächsisches Wattenmeer.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2020 at 12:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created by Ssprmannheim - uploaded by Ssprmannheim - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Ssprmannheim}}|]] -- Ssprmannheim (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ssprmannheim (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Some noise reduction in the sky would be welcome if it would make the picture better, but that's quite a face! How do we know it's attacking, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as at QI earlier today, photo taken too late; wing tip missing. And almost certainly not attacking. Charles (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Flawed, with the missing wingtip, but good quality and dramatic expression. Cmao20 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent picture! (And I'd like to know what happened next...) MartinD (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles Poco a poco (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop too tight and shutter too slow for a sharp flying bird. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The head is excellent, the light is nice, unfortunately the crop is too tight. Immediately on both sides the tips of the wings missing ruin the composition in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose sadly the framing ruined this excellent catch :( Moving animals or sports always try to keep some space around your framing, and crop if necessary, sometimes it's not possible I know, but arrrggg It's sad that this don't go to FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info I know the right wingtip is missing. The bird was flying in my direction at a high speed and i wanted to take the picture as late as possible to fill most of the frame. But the bird was attacking. The picture was taken during a nest monitoring for scientific purpose. -- Ssprmannheim (talk)
Support -- amuzujoe (Talk) It a very nice picture, i think it would have been better is some space are left around the wings1, the cropping or the zoom was too much. in any case it a nice picture. 1:31(GMT), 16 January 2020

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aussicht vom Witthoh.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2020 at 12:16:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info Man enjoying the view from the Witthoh with a good view of the Swiss Alps. All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tæ 12:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like dark photos, but this seems a little bit underexposed even for me. And the stick on the far right is distracting. Anyway, nice photo.--Grtek (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a somewhat tighter crop (see note) might help the compo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea. Cmao20 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would second Martin’s suggestion of a tighter crop, but it’s good anyway. --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Aristeas --Llez (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasantly minimalist and almost abstract. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support In connection with the pole on the right.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.07.06.-03-Grosser Glubigsee-Wendisch Rietz--Haubentaucher im Prachtkleid.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2020 at 21:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not understanding this nomination. The duck looks dark and rather unsharp. Is this the right file? Also, can you please be more specific in your categories? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The specific category does not exist. As long there is no featured picture matching a category it makes no sense to create one. --Hockei (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you do mean to nominate this photo, Oppose per my remarks above. As for categories: This is a grebe, a kind of waterfowl. Surely, there's some subcategory of birds this would belong in? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC
The subcategory for the photo is not created just because you write it in the nom, but it is a great help for those who sort the FPs in the right section in the galleries, to not have to do the detective work of finding out where it should be placed. Most users don't do that themselves. --Cart (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unappealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not everyone likes backlit photos. --Hockei (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly tilted also -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile Morin.--Dinkum (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No matter. It cannot be bad. Otherwise people wouldn't integrate it in wikipedia articles. I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close-up of Tropaeolum majus flowers droplets -20190830-RM-081005.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2020 at 06:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Tropaeolaceae
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tæ -- Tæ 06:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tæ 06:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good quality, but I don't like the crop at all. --Ivar (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that crop. --Grtek (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The crop is OK and the photographer's choice, and the main point to me is that the photo is rather spectacular. How did you get such a dark background (which also helps the photo) at 08:10:05 on August 30? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The sky was rather overcast and weather rainy. The background is the ground of the flowerbed in some distance.--Ermell (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nominaton.--Ermell (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar and I've to admit that Ermell's focus-stacking flower/fungi pictures is raising the bar considerably Poco a poco (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent sharpness and beautiful flower. Crop is OK for me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 03:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- amuzujoe (Talk) It a very nice picture, anytime taken such a pictures like this try to have all the parts in the frame. that would have been much nicer. 1:39(GMT), 16 January 2020

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Tropaeolaceae

File:Kimono Forest at night, Arashiyama Station, Arashiyama, Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2020 at 01:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Already saw this on quality image candidates and thought it would be worth being nominated here. Great colors and framing. Also thanks for the excellent image description that goes along with this photo. All together I'm wondering whether I should book my next trip to Japan. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me with your pictures of Nagano :-) Thanks, Frank! -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is fun. I think of Christo and compare this favorably to the "Gates" he and Jeanne-Claude temporarily installed in Central Park, New York City in 2005. Is there a particular artist who should be credited with this installation, or is it part of the train station that they hired people to do and that the city (or the railway company, if it's private) takes credit for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is certainly a similar case of installation in a public space. I'm discovering these "Gates" now. Very nice. Thanks, Ikan, for the reference! -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, though to be honest, my favorite thing about that installation was that it was temporary. :-) I notice this language in your file description: "developed by the interior designer Yasumichi Morita". But developed doesn't mean the same as installed. I suppose the point is that Morita planned out the installation and then it was executed to his specifications by people employed to do so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! These gates you refer to evoke me those ones from Japan, that's maybe why I appreciate them. You may be right about the distinction. I got the details of the description from what I could find on the web -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like those. But I pretty much always like toriis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. --Aristeas (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for this surprising picture Tozina (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your enthusiasm -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very beautiful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very pleasing to the eye, and very well done. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice lines Charles (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors

File:Waibstadt - Jüdischer Friedhof - ältester Teil - Grabsteine im Herbstlaub.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2020 at 23:19:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours. --A.Savin 09:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Andrei, for nominating, and all of you for support! --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A. Savin. Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have moved or found some way in post to get rid of that branch poking out from behind the central tombstone, but since I didn't really notice it until I took a closer look, no harm no foul. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canberra (AU), Commonwealth Avenue Bridge -- 2019 -- 1811.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2020 at 06:56:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice composition. It seems like it might be sharper at full size, though. It looks very good at 300% of my 13-inch laptop screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:מכתש רמון - גלישת עננים.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2020 at 13:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Israel
Info created by ZeevStein - uploaded by ZeevStein - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC) creating an alternative file --Andrei (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this is really WOW...--Grtek (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC) For alternative.--Grtek (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could ~~you~~ the creater reduce the noise? --Hockei (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Certainly has the wow-factor. MartinD (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per everyone including Hockei, as some noise reduction would be nice to see. Is this an aerial photo? If it is, the file page should state that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)- no longer support this version Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DJI Mavic Pro. --A.Savin 15:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the description but can not fix the noise --Andrei (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Impressive, but I don't know what went wrong with the street at the bottom left, see note. --Milseburg (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, cloning accident. Should be fixed, otherwise I'm tending to withdraw my support. --A.Savin 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definetley did not see that. Is it a good idea to crop?--Andrei (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only from the left, not the bottom. --A.Savin 18:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks for noticing this, Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version per Milseburg. Editing problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info User:Grtek User:MartinD User:Ikan_Kekek User:A.Savin User:Michielverbeek please see a cropped version --Andrei (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though the bottom crop is a bit unfortunate --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Minor crop doesn't require separate file. --A.Savin 10:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it won WLM like that, so that file was probably published on numerous occasions, and Id like to keep it as it is --Andrei (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps you're right. --A.Savin 13:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Bottom crop is very tight but the picture has a lot of wow. Cmao20 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 03:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Israel

The chosen alternative is: File:מכתש רמון - גלישת עננים (cropped).jpg

File:Clarendon Building, Oxford, England - May 2010.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2020 at 22:22:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_Kingdom
Info This is actually a renomination; it was first nominated in June 2010 but failed because of a stitching error, which the author promptly corrected. Even nearly ten years later, it seems excellent to me in terms of colour, composition and sharpness, and so I think it deserves a proper go. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could it be that the horizontal roof line is slightly crooked? (See note.)--Famberhorst (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it myself, but I would appreciate more opinions on that. Cmao20 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support In connection with the roof line.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Last light of the day on shacks in Govik 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2020 at 14:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Sweden
Info In full daylight this is a rather bleak place, but the slanting last light on a cold winter's day brings out the shapes and lines. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You really have sewn a silk purse out of a sow's ear, if you know the saying. There's a region on the upper right that's less sharp than other parts of the picture, so you might have a look at whether that can be edited in a useful way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the saying and I thank you for it. It is a dismal place and the low winter light makes all the difference. The reason the upper right is less sharp than the rest of the photo, is because it is really much further away. It may not look like it, but if you check on a map, those cliffs and trees (where I shot this FP) are almost one kilometer away as opposed to the old dock and shacks at about 200-250 meters. I'll see if I can do something about it, but I can't promise anything. --Cart (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fixed. Some selective sharpening to the upper right. Thanks for your comment, Ikan. --Cart (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Thanks for the good edit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but there's not a lot of wow factor here for me. I see this kind of scenery every day, so..--Peulle (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Fischer.H (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows are too strong and no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, nothing so special... -- Karelj (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The "Hello darkness my old friend..." is probably not a universal thing to like. :-) --Cart (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlayaVarese-0027.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2020 at 12:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 12:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 12:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~horizon not level.~~ Charles (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional support~~ on the horizon being straightened. Cmao20 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: and @Charlesjsharp:

Done thanks!!!! Ezarateesteban 00:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the texture of the tent tops but the whole image just has too much going on (There's also some CA visible in the lower right). Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: CA fixed thanks Ezarateesteban 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see any wow. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beach - Île de la Corrège - Leucate.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2020 at 11:08:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Aude
Info "Once upon a time on a rainy day just before sunrise..."; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite Wow in full screen! --PierreSelim (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very dramatic, but I'm really sorry to say I don't think it's sharp enough at full size. It's lovely, but we have a lot of sunrise photos on Commons and I think we can afford to be picky about sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iifar --Fischer.H (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019-08-18 affiche-style-sov.pdf, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2020 at 18:21:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why PDF? It's a rather strange format for a picture. The oppose is because the very modern-looking fence is spoiling the air of historical reenactment, plus the old CCCP knew how to make sturdy stuff and would never have accepted such a bent flimsy flag pole on a propaganda poster. This was more their style. ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just can’t see why this should be among our very best. The photographic skill in it is not overwhelming. --Kreuz schnabel 21:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info As a Russian speaker, should mention that reading that text is physically and mentally painful --Andrei (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's French. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe it reads, "Go stick your head in a pig" in Russian. On using foreign glyphs, some don’t always consider it’d actually make unwanted sense. --Kreuz schnabel 08:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can relate to the cringeworthiness of seeing an alphabet you know so well being contorted as a font for another. It's like when someone uses the dots and rings in Swedish (å ä ö) to make something look "cool" but only end up looking like complete dorks to a native user of those letters. --Cart (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 from a German. The other way round is not much better, though ... --El Grafo (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He-he, FYI adding the "Swedish dots" transform the band name into Swedish dialects associated with sort of dumb forest hillbillies with no education often used as characters in base comedies and sketches. If only the bands knew... --Cart (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OK, I must admit that guy looks just like he's posing for a cold war propaganda poster. Even the general direction of this edit makes sense, it wants to be used as the base for an en:Image macro of sorts. But the whole background is distracting and the text is a bit ... uninspired. If you'd just cut out the guy, place him on an empty background, and let the meming communities of the interwebz have a go at it, I'm sure somebody would come up with something hilarious - but this is not it. Also: PDF. --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jetty with the ladders in last light of the day.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2020 at 11:28:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other objects in landscapes
Info I've been stalking this peculiar jetty with its assortment of ladders for some time now (as is evident from the category) to find the best light and time to isolate it from distracting boats and background. I think this calm, but very cold, winter twilight works best. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creative composition as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very special light. --Axel ^(talk) 21:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and composition. --Aristeas (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any chance to get rid of the many jpg-artefacts in the lower part from the middle to the right? --Llez (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a try. Unfortunately, my camera doesn't operate that well in very dark areas, I always get grainy spots. Thanks for pointing it out. --Cart (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I've done what I can now and I think it is better. Thanks. --Cart (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better now --Llez (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rather complicated composition that brings out a lot of color, texture and mood. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Other objects in landscapes

File:Ocypode-ceratophthalma-horned-ghost-crab-krabi-thailand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2020 at 08:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Ocypodidae_(Ghost_Crabs_and_Fiddler_Crabs)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question tilted? Charles (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does it matter, if you can't tell? --Ivar (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's tilted, but I wait for other opinions. Charles (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tilted seems to be the agreement. We should wait till the photographer returns and has an opportunity to correct it. Charles (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good for me. Difficult to tell if it's tilted or not, but I don't think it matters too much when the background is so blurred you can hardly tell. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it, but it does appear to be likely tilted to me, especially considering the orientation of the hills in the background. However, I'm supporting because I don't think Rushenb is likely to edit a photo to our preferences, as s/he last contributed to Commons on October 7, 2019. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tæ 12:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support these eyes -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love those Spongebob eyes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great specimen. --Axel ^(talk) 21:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Ocypodidae_(Ghost_Crabs_and_Fiddler_Crabs)

File:Corylus avellana flower hoarfrost -20200102-RM-112558.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2020 at 18:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Betulaceae
Info Ermell has produced a great many high-quality focus stacks of plants lately, so here's another one that was recently promoted at QI. created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but noise level is too high for me. --Ivar (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the main subject is very beautiful! The (very present) branch on the right bothers me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Famberhorst. See note for a better crop. --Hockei (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: As the author of the photo, would you have an issue with me offering an alternative matching Hockei's crop? Cmao20 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Alternative crop suggested by Hockei.--Ermell (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The original breathes more, but I support this version, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop doesn't quite match my suggestion. It was my intention to get rid of the white branch on the right as far as possible and to leave a little more space on the left so that the motif is not centered in the picture. If you want I would send you my crop or overwrite your crop with it for comparison. Then you would see what I mean. --Hockei (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a good idea and I am curious about the result.--Ermell (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request Will you send me your email address or give me your permission for overwriting? --Hockei (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: I'll upload now my crop because it is my last chance for the remaining time. It is an exception for me. Normally I don't do this but I can't wait longer for your answer. I hope you are not angry. Please set it back to your version if you don't like it. --Hockei (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I didn't find it easy to include the background somehow, but this version turned out pretty good. Why should I be angry. Constructive work is always supported by me.--Ermell (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you've cropped it yourself. I am happy to Support this version, or any different crop that Hockei comes up with. Cmao20 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, Daniel Case, Famberhorst, Aristeas, and Iifar: Please take a look to the new cropped version. Thanks! --Hockei (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still support this one. Cmao20 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I think it's better than the centered alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hockei (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop is better, but strong noise is still there. --Ivar (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope I can support both versions ;–). (I still like the original version, too.) --Aristeas (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support In connection with the twig on the right.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm fine with both versions --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Betulaceae

The chosen alternative is: File:Corylus avellana flower hoarfrost 02-20200102-RM-112558.jpg

File:Geopelia placida - Glen Alice.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2020 at 16:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support DoF is a bit shallow --Kreuz schnabel 17:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment issues from work on the background (see note). Charles (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issue fixed --Ivar (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done Ivar, the issue is fixed now. Good shot as usual for this author. Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm a little surprised this is getting so much support, as the head could be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yup, DoF is not ideal, however the plumage is of excellent quality --Kreuz schnabel 09:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves)

File:2017.08.25.-02-Mannheim Vogelstang--Hauhechel-Blaeuling-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2020 at 09:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Can you bring back any more detail from the white flowers? Charles (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No chance. But I've adjusted the exposure a bit higher with a new version. --Hockei (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thankyou! It's great in detail! Tozina (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be sharper in some places but overall good for a small subject. Cmao20 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)

File:Church in Brenac (2).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2020 at 12:10:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info created by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tæ -- Tæ 12:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tæ 12:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of this slightly off-centred composition, I'm afraid. The bright light on the right is also a bit unpleasant.--Peulle (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but not exceptional recording -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no. Quality/resolution is but mediocre (tending to poor in the shady part), the twigs on the left are disturbing, some artifacts on the roof. f/11 on a wide-angle causes visible diffraction, it wasn’t necessary to stop down so far. Crop suggestion added. --Kreuz schnabel 11:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image of a pretty church but IMO doesn't have enough for FP in terms of resolution or detail. Cmao20 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao. ----Wright Streetdeck 06:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darwin (AU), Darwin Waterfront -- 2019 -- 4423-5.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2020 at 09:47:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 09:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 09:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality for a night shot. Cmao20 (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tæ 14:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think it would look even better with my suggested crop taking away a lot of dead dark space. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good idea. I'll try it within the next days. --XRay ^talk 07:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Daniel Case: A made the suggested crop. IMO it improves the image. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 05:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Wright Streetdeck 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gazella subgutturosa subgutturosa - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2020 at 08:04:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A zoo picture, but certainly a good moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bamboo Forest, Arashiyama, Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2020 at 01:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Poaceae
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When I saw this at QIC, I had a feeling I'd see it here. It's fun and interesting to look at, and very different from the equatorial bamboo forest I remember from the village I used to live in in Malaysia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been in few bamboo forests in Japan, and I think the composition is not perfect here. Also the light is rather dull. —kallerna (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Poaceae

File:Fernsehturm, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 40-42 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2020 at 15:18:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info View of the Fernsehturm (TV tower) from the bottom, Berlin, Germany. The tower, located close to Alexanderplatz in the center of the capital, was built between 1965 and 1969 by the government of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). It was intended to be both a symbol of Communist power and of the city and remains today as one of its landmarks. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. The perspective distortion at the bottom is obviously forgiveable here because you have deliberately tilted the camera upwards. Noise is well controlled for a high-resolution night shot. Cmao20 (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only because it's nice to see a photo where the perspective distortion not only works, but adds to the compo by giving the whole thing a Metropolis-esque look. --Cart (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support Sharp but I suggest you increase the whites. You probably lowered the highlights, thus the white parts now look grey -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basile Morin: I think that you've got a point, I've increased the highlights a bit. Poco a poco (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, more natural now -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but is it possible to clone out the two ghosts in the center? --Llez (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done, Llez Poco a poco (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:غار ایوب 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2020 at 14:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Iran
Info created by Morteza salehi70 - uploaded by Morteza salehi70 - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 14:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 14:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitelly WOW photo with really nice light. --Grtek (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really beautiful location, really attractively photographed. I want to go there, when my country's government can stop acting hostile toward Iran for long enough for it to be reasonable for a Jewish American to visit... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps when Iran begin acting like a normal Nation! --Gnosis (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both. But honoring agreements they're observing would have helped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Ikan but please keep political discussions out of here, thanks. --Kreuz schnabel 09:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love to have a cup of tee there! --Gnosis (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish it was higher resolution but the wow-factor makes up for it. Cmao20 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow there is, but please consider to submit a non-downsampled version. --A.Savin 22:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin --Andrei (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao20. Would be glad to change this to strong support if we could get a non-downsampled version ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Savin. --Ivar (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazing. But: Please upload the image in full resolution. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 17:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Savin. --Hockei (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per now until higher resolution is uploaded. A bit too much sharpening applied, there’s a bright seam along the cave edge. --Kreuz schnabel 09:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because the uploader is someone else than the nominator it´could be difficult to get a higher resolution I´m afraid. --Milseburg (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Milseburg. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of an ant, profile view.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2020 at 00:20:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info created by Retro Lenses - uploaded by Retro Lenses - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow!!! It would be nice if we could see at least one complete leg, but that doesn't come close to making this not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - One request, though: Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see the degree of magnification used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, this information is unknown. But the approximate scale is still understandable : ) JukoFF (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk)

Question Which species do we see here? --Cayambe (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately, this information is unknown. JukoFF (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can User:Retro Lenses be contacted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly extraordinary. Cmao20 (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, wow. It's like he/she is posing for the camera! Ahmad^talk 06:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks the ant's had better days. Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --PierreSelim (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Good picture, but any information on the species / genus, origin, size? --Llez (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another FP level --Wilfredor (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016.07.18.-18-Strande--Mantelmoewe.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2020 at 12:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good QI, but the light is not the best to create a wow emotion. --Peulle (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I disagree. This bird seems to have real personality, maybe because it's looking at the camera. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's under exposed by at least one stop. --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info El Grafo, I've adjusted the exposure a bit, please take a look. More I won't do because I don't like very bright pictures with lost details. --Hockei (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, but I'd still give it another little push in the upper mid-tones. Anyway, after giving it some time I think I'd stick to my vote regardless of that. There's nothing actually wrong with it and I like the composition with just the right amount of lead room. In particular, I really like how the diagonal of the white\brown feathers runs parallel to the diagonal of the brown beach\bright water (a little bit more to the right and they would've lined up perfectly). But none of that really makes me go "Wow, that's awesome!", so … --El Grafo (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Ikan, and the quality is pretty good too. Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Average quality, unappealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Ivar (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica de Notre-Dame, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-11, DD 20-22 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2020 at 18:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The movements of cars in the lower part distract the composition, my recommendation is to use different layers and eliminate the ghosts --Wilfredor (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfredor: I've indeed removed some ghots in the version below Poco a poco (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- amuzujoe (Talk) 1:20, 16 January 2020 (GMT)
Support --Gnosis (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The urban activity is at the bottom of the photo and doesn't distract me; it's part of the atmosphere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't like this in thumbnail size but viewed in full it's a good shot, very sharp and lots of nice details. Ghosting is IMO not severe although there are a few bits where aliasing could be dealt with better. Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be ghosts in the right centre foreground. 10:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose ghosts and HDR artefacts are too distracting for me. --Ivar (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I've fixed a slight tilt, regarding the ghost, tricky, will see if I can do something about that. Thank you Tomer for the nom! Poco a poco (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer T, I've uploaded an edited version of the file with less ghosting, what do you think? should we offer it as an alternative to the original one? up to you, --Poco a poco (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, added. Tomer T (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer T: I've improved the version below and will keep my support there and remove it here to try to tip the balance in that direction Poco a poco (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica_Notre-Dame,_Montreal,_Canadá,_2017-08-11,_DD_20-22_HDR_Edit.jpg

Comment alt by Poco a poco - reduced ghosting. Tomer T (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support also. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan Poco a poco (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Right tower has CCW tilt, walking legs on the left, couple artefacts still there (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: If not completely fixed I've made some improvements in this version following your notes. Poco a poco (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral much better now, but some ghosts are stil there. --Ivar (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support That lean on the right can, and should, be corrected. Other than that I'm OK ... this picture is meant to show the church at night and it works very well in that department. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A sharp and great photo. ----Wright Streetdeck 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this vote may be problematic to close, choosing the image with higher support and consensus. Pinging voters: @Wilfredor, Amuzujoe, Gnosis, Johann Jaritz, and Aristeas: . Tomer T (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pinging more voters: @Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Iifar, Poco a poco, and Ermell: . Tomer T (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pinging more voters: @Daniel Case, Tournasol7, and Streetdeck: . Tomer T (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hard for me to choose between the two. I'll defer to everyone else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original takes it for me, on the basis that the alt doesn't completely eliminate the ghosts (so doesn't have that much of an advantage there) and is also noticeably less sharp and detailed than the original on the building itself. Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gnosis (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Si bien el problema de los fantasmas ha sido mejorado, sigo observando un problema de perspectiva, observa los autos de la parte inferior derecha, por ejemplo totalmente aplastados. Saludos --Wilfredor (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Basílica de Notre-Dame, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-11, DD 20-22 HDR.jpg

8 support 2 oppose, against 8 support 2 neutral. Tomer T (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common hoopoe (Upupa epops epops) Udaipur.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2020 at 13:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Bucerotiformes_(Hornbills,_Hoopoes_and_Wood_Hoopoes)
Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bird looks rather forlorn, partially hiding behind that stone wall. --Cart (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wildlife is not only happening in idealistic national parks. I think this photo is great in capturing a realistic moment. --Andrei (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good but a bit too much colour noise in places, and also the feathers are partly blown out. It's still a strong image as usual from Charles but I don't think it's anything like one of his best. Cmao20 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bird mostly in shade, blown whites on the sunshine. --Ivar (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for comments! It will help me to improve future nominations. --Andrei (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ec Szombierk widok hali głównej.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2020 at 17:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Poland
Info created by Marian_Naworski - uploaded by Marian_Naworski - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please provide some better categories, geolocation and preferably a description in English on the file page. As nominator you are responsible for the nomination and you have to make sure a file is up to FP standards in all aspects before nominating it. Sure, we often help out with such things, but you have been around here long enough to fix that yourself by now, please. --Cart (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @W.carter: you're right miss carter. but this picture was awarded 6th place of WLM 2019. I nominated first picture of WLM 2019 too. both of them photographed by Marian Naworski. my intention of nominating these pictures is I want to find out what's the WOW in them.--Amirpashaei (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is right, they have plenty of 'wow', but the "boring paper work" for each nomination has to be done right too by the nominator regardless of that. It is all written in the rules of FPC. An FP is so much more than just a pretty picture, we also need background info on it and good categories and description so that Wikipedians around the world can find it and will know how to use it. A picture without context is useless. We always help 'newbies' with all this, but in time all users have to grow up and fix the basic requirements themselves. After 17 successful FPs, you should be able to do this. --Cart (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per Cart. When nominate other people's work presenting it properly is important, such as this image where I added an English caption before nominating. An FP should be made as useful as possible for anyone working on a project to find and use. As for the picture itself, it's definitely got 'wow' although it's not that sharp and detailed in the shadows. I think I would support it overall though. Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ per The Cosmonaut. Cmao20 (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I know I'm being really indecisive on this one, but Amirpashaei is right about it. Anyone could visit this place and take an identical shot with higher technical quality. There's nothing imaginative or unique about the composition, the wow comes from the location, and even that could be captured better. Cmao20 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: added coordinates, English description, improved categorization. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amirpashaei, once again a kind user stepped in and did the work for you. This time it was The Cosmonaut and I hope you take a good look at what he did so that you can make sure a photo has all the things needed before you nominate it. I have also fixed the FP category for you. --Cart (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very interesting place. The ceiling is a bit unsharp compared to what we are used to here, but it's ok for a single shot photo and I can live with it. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cart. @The Cosmonaut: Thank you very much for adding the necessary information! --Aristeas (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alot of Technically problems are obviously seen same as first awarded wml. (CAs, not many details in the shadows, and blurring in the whole image especially in both sides ) and I can't understand any wow in the picture. if anyone knows what is the wow, tell me about it. --Amirpashaei (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amirpashaei, I can tell you why I supported this one if it helps. I think there's something magnificent and tragic about decaying heavy industry like this, it makes me think about the age of techno-optimism when buildings like this were shiny and new, and about all the people who spent their working lives here long ago. It's an emotional argument more than anything else. You're right about the technical problems though. Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- this picture is just a snapshot you can take it with your mobile. I agree with you about the emotional and magnificent and tragic. but these items are in this place and art of photographer just selecting this place to photographing. the art of photographer most be using elements that helps to reaching the main goal of that picture. we can't see any special look or composition could make the photo stronger.or at least I can't see it.--Amirpashaei (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong, in truth; it's not that carefully composed. Supporting it was a marginal decision for me. The images you have been submitting of your own at FPC are all much higher quality than this. I'm sad that WLM didn't give your pictures as high a status as they deserve, but we are always happy to see your work here at FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Cmao20 for your kind. --Amirpashaei (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me the 'wow' does not always have to be a positive happy feeling. (The again, I'm Swedish and we know a lot about being dark and depressed... ;-) ) The 'wow' in this is the feeling of sadness, of dreams gone by, of the passing of time and that nothing is eternal. A photo that evokes an emotion, good or bad, has 'wow' to me. --Cart (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not voted for this photo, but I don't agree that it's "just a snapshot". The composition is fairly good, in terms of framing. I'm in no way awed by it, but it's not random. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. framing not bad but there is not specially look or framing and composition.--Amirpashaei (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dilapidated beauty. Sort of reminds me of the interior of the Bradbury Building as seen in Blade Runner. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cosmonaut (talk • contribs) --Cart (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Industry#Poland

File:Stawiszyn Nieczynny Kościół Tył kościoła.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2020 at 17:38:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Poland
Info created by Marian_Naworski - uploaded by Marian_Naworski - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same request as below, please. --Cart (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really like to support this photo, but I must second Cart’s request for more information, precise categories etc. --Aristeas (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my reasoning below. I'm not sure I like the composition so much, the whole image looks oddly askew as if it's tilted to the left, so I'm not sure I'd support this one. Cmao20 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: added coordinates, English description, improved categorization. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Cosmonaut, I hope Amirpashaei will learn from it and not always just rely on other user fixing things on nominations. I've added a few categories too. --Cart (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cosmonaut: Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cosmonaut: Thank you very much. that was my job. but I haven't more information.--Amirpashaei (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting lighting. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Technically far from perfect (CAs, blown windows, not many details in the shadow, minor perspective correction would be good), but it has so much “wow” for me that I have to support it. --Aristeas (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with @Cmao20, the whole image looks oddly askew as if it's tilted to the left and right section of picture is empty. alot of Technically problems are obviously seen. (CAs, blown windows, not many details in the shadow, perspective correction and blurring in the whole image ) I can't understand any wow in the picture. if anyone knows what is the wow, tell me about it.--Amirpashaei (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why did you nominate it if you oppose a feature? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan_Kekek because I wanted to know what's the wow of this picture and what's the reason of the first award of WLM. now I realized that I overestimated WLM and the judgement. I understood beauty of picture, sharpness, focusing , blurring , ca, blown section, no detail in shadow, perspective correction, framing and composition are not important to jury. --Amirpashaei (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amirpashaei, you are right in that the juries of WLM sometimes make very strange choices and it does you credit to see that. A win in that competition does not guarantee that the photo will be an FP. But if you look at the rest of the photos in lower placings, you will always find very good pictures to nominate here. Many FPs are picked from around 5-20th place. Go with what you feel is right when you make nominations, that is always better. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amirpashaei, I agree with Cart here. WLM is an unusual competition that seems to be judged fairly randomly, paying little attention to image quality and much more emphasis on immediate visual wow. Lots of the winners have poor image quality, oversaturated colours etc. But there are usually a few gems hiding within the majority of mediocre shots. I found and nominated these three FPs by looking through WLM regional finalists, and all three passed with strong margins. Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sent 27 pictures to wml and 10 of them got FP and 4 of them selected as 10 best pictures from iran. But in surprise none of them could award 1 to 15 in wml. heritage office in iran don't care to good pictures and they don't want to spend any budget on it. I wanted to impress them by that. my goal was professional photographing from iran's heritage in 1-2 years. I nominated my pictures as FP for reaching this goal. by the way my job is architectural photographer and if I want to photographing heritage instead restaurant and houses I need to money to spend it in this way. now I'm upset why I overestimated wml and judgement.--Amirpashaei (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] Yes, this has been discussed before, more on the talk page than in FPC noms but sometimes here, too. I would similarly say that the best photos, from the viewpoint of FPC regulars, in the monthly photo challenges are only sometimes in the top three. Often, they're further down the list. Now and then, 2 of the top 3 or, I think on at least one occasion (not sure, though), even all 3 of them are excellent and have passed at FPC too. It's more common for the top 3 to be QIs, but quite often, some of them are too small or unsharp/noisy/weird in perspective to be remotely close to QIs, yet they placed 1st or 2nd in the photo challenge. My feeling is that WLM and the Photo challenge are good places to look for interesting photos by photographers whose works in some cases haven't been represented among FPs and are deserving, but you should use your own judgment about which photos seem deserving to you. I might nominate one that's interesting and I think might or might not pass, but I wouldn't nominate one I've already decided is not an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathies, Amirpashaei. Iran is an extraordinarily beautiful country, and fortunately, it is well represented among FPs. Poco took quite a few FPs during his trip to Iran a few years ago, and others have taken others. But I haven't the slightest doubt that there's a lot more out there to take breathtaking photographs of. Don't spend beyond your means to do it, but we'll be here to look at whichever photos you nominate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ikan. sure. --Amirpashaei (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose Beautiful image which I can practically smell the dust looking at, but too many technical flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angreifende Silbermöwe auf Spiekeroog, Nationalpark niedersächsisches Wattenmeer - edited.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2020 at 22:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Larus
Info created and uploaded by Ssprmannheim - tweaked and nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is far from the first time a photo has been tweaked by cropping or adding space or cloning parts of the photo. I thought it was a great shame this really good photo didn't make FP in its original form. However, the photo was easy to fix with some editing tools. I'm totally fine with this, but if the author, Ssprmannheim, doesn't like it, I will of course withdraw the nomination immediately. -- Cart (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this edit fixes the image. Thank you W.carter! -- Ssprmannheim 23:31, 19 January 2020
Support Wonderful, well done. This kind of fix is OK for me as long as it doesn't misrepresent the original, and this doesn't. Cmao20 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I guess that's a little tricky, but I'll accept it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ha, this could spark off some fundamental discussions... but I see no reason not to give my support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Goed werk!--Famberhorst (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometime ago, I had a dream ... -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better now ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this time! --PierreSelim (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pörtschach Winklern Gaisrückenstraße Am Kåte NO-Ansicht 09012020 7969.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2020 at 23:35:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Carinthia
Info A beautiful wintry Austrian landscape, showing excellent use of leading lines in composition. created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sorry, but can I vote using this account? --Boothsift Four (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This question doesn't belong on someone's nomination, so I'll copy this to the FPC talk page and we'll see if this can be sorted out. --Cart (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Demonstrates that's it easily possible to shoot a great winter landscape without much snow. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case. --Aristeas (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waves at La Corniche.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2020 at 09:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's like a good Romantic painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO really a happy medium between short and long exposure; this photo shows the water’s movement convincingly. --Aristeas (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long, but not too long exposure time. Great! --XRay ^talk 17:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 17:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Peulle (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a beautiful photo and with extraordinary light - well done. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, technically and artistically. Striking scenery, good composition and light -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very dramatic, and as others have mentioned, you have captured the motion of the waves very well. However, the HDR takes me out of it a bit - especially the clouds and sunset in the background lack contrast. --Draemmli (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make HDRs. 99,8% of my own works are single shot photos, with only a few panoramas. You apparently don't enjoy the processing. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Are there (Note) some dusts? --Neptuul (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe... or some little water droplets. I have cloned its out. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. ----Wright Streetdeck 06:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 31 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Macropus giganteus - Brunkerville.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2020 at 14:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper 14:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tæ 14:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my eye on nominating this back in December. The only thing that made me hold off was that the detail at full-res maybe could be a little better, a consequence of the high ISO; but given the very high resolution I think it's OK. Downsized to 9mpx it looks super. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think I'm going to support this. The blurry foreground bokeh that's blocking their feet and the joey's tail is displeasing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely an FP for me. Tomer T (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop at the top is disturbingly tight, and the mother's nose is a bit on the blurry side, but this is such a charming portrait … --El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good shot, but the noses are overexposed --Llez (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute and very nice! --Domob (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Macropodidae (Macropods)

Question Is "Animals/Mammals" really as specific as the category can get? I doubt it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: it should go into the "Macropodidae" subsection of that page. Trying to fix that with this edit, hope the bot will understand? --El Grafo (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, El Grafo. It should work unless the bot also looks for the category at the top, in which case, that should be changed, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cat Sphynx. Kittens. img 11.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2020 at 10:55:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created & uploaded by Knopik-som - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A different option from the great sphinx cat photo series. -- Tomer T (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow for me. --Grtek (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality, over-exposed. Charles (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The quality isn't terrible and it's a good composition but it doesn't wow me. I'm afraid I do think it is a very ugly animal and it doesn't have any real appeal for me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cart is correct that we should look at the image rather than judge based on our own preferences. It's a good photo and overall deserves the FP label. Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Nothing wrong with the compo but its is unfortunately a tad overexposed. Knopik-som, is there any chance of dialing down the highlights? Yep, it is one ugly cat IMO although it looks so pitiful you can't help having some sympathy for it, but as Wikipedians and photo critics we must be able to put aside our own preferences and simply look at the image. (Hey, I've supported a number of spiders and other yuck-y photos.) Just having FPs of cute cuddly animals and places we want to go on vacation to will not help the Wiki project. --Cart (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed lighting. Thanks you. --Dmitry Makeev 14:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dmitry, do you think you could be so kind as to add where this photo is taken (town, country), that is always useful for a Wiki. Move to Support. Looking at those big, begging eyes, I just want to knit something for it to keep it warm. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary kitten image, nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - relatively ordinary (but always strange) subject, and technically just pretty good, but something about the composition works for me for this subject. I think it communicates well the texture of the animal (a strange sentence, I know). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emosson Construction.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2020 at 15:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created by ~~Hans Baumann~~ Unknown, possibly Heinz Baumann - uploaded by Draemmli - nominated by Draemmli -- Draemmli (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~The scan has a lot of scratches, but~~ this is my favourite picture from the ETH image library. -- Draemmli (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Needs digital restoration for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried removing the worst scratches and specks, with the caveat that I don't know what I'm doing. Do you think my edits have improved the image, or should I revert them? --Draemmli (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it for you. Really cool photo.--Cart (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I combined our two versions by picking out the best areas from each. --Draemmli (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Making me quite curious. Tozina (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Grtek (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the digital restoration. I've crossed out my opposing vote accordingly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flawed, but interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong vignetting. Too contrasted with ugly black areas, blown highlights, messy composition and white balance problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rocks in that area seem to be actually pinkish, and I assume the streaks in the foreground are pinkish due to taillights, with added pink on the bends due to brake lights. I assume that, as this is the 1970s, these are halogen lights. The concrete seems both greenish (in reflected light from the ground) and pinkish (in areas with more direct light). I'm not sure what the whites should be here for realism. HLHJ (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry if this seems Philistine to most of you, but while the photo is an interesting document, it doesn't strike me as great. If it weren't a historical photo, I'd recommend for most of the darkest parts to be cropped out and also the part closest to the top. Is it by this Hans Baumann or another one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about the author sent me on a bit of a journey. My original source no longer names any photographer, so I thought I might have mistakenly copied this from some other upload. However, there are a bunch of other photos from Comet Photo AG credited with Hans Baumann on Commons, and for all of those, the ETH library now names a Heinz Baumann as the author. So, for this photo here we can't be sure anymore, but it might be this Heinz Baumann. I'll edit all the affected image descriptions. --Draemmli (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just too artsy. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perr Basile Poco a poco (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and a strange black area. ----Wright Streetdeck 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this. It has great educational value and artistic value, which combine to overpower any technical shortcomings. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gele trilzwam (Tremella mesenterica). (d.j.b.) 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2020 at 16:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Tremellaceae
Info Yellow vibratory mushroom (Tremella mesenterica). Drenched mushroom on a dead branch between fallen leaves.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice but wet colors. --Cart (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good although maybe not quite as sharp as your usual. Cmao20 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Tremellaceae

File:Vue du Cap Blanc-Nez.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2020 at 15:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info View of Cap Blanc-Nez (France) from the beach during low tide in the evening. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice light but maybe a bit bland in terms of composition. Cmao20 (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow for me, too straightforward. If only more of the reflection was visible. A bit too much sharpening applied (bright seam along the edge). --Kreuz schnabel 21:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz - ultimately, not interesting enough viewing for me for FP. Sorry about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz and Ikan - -- Karelj (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz, Ikan and Karelj. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. The composition and light are just not special enough for FP. --Domob (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Українська Моравія.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2020 at 17:04:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture
Info created & uploaded by Vian - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the elegant and organic billowing of the fields. The sheer scale of it makes the little tractor look like a servant of the earth, tending it. --Cart (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart.--Ermell (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not that sharp everywhere, but what an extraordinary composition! Cmao20 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition, but sharpness and resolution should be better. -- XRay ^talk 05:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not sure if it is the best image from the series, but OK. --Andrei (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sharpness and resolution are certainly not stellar, but how could I say no to this composition? --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Almost an abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, and for me the sharpness is certainly good enough (especially the tractor is sharp enough, blurriness in the field further back doesn't hurt that much). --Domob (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't voted on this, but I would request for the crop to be identified and a category added for it. For the record, I don't find the composition obviously outstanding, but I can understand the appeal, at least to some extent, and haven't felt impelled to vote in either direction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I don't think it's possible to identify any crop since there is none. The tractor is just harrowing the field, preparing the soil for planting a crop. You can't possibly request that we try to see into the future what will be planted in those fields. The small spots of green you see are weeds and remains of last year's crop. The photo is taken in April, which is a normal month for fixing the soil after the winter to plant what will grow during summer and harvested in the autumn. At least in the northern hemisphere. --Cart (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, understood. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eva and Franco Mattes, Ceiling Cat.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2020 at 23:02:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)
Info installation by Eva and Franco Mattes - photograph by Katherine Du Tiel - uploaded by Vsthill - nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs
Info For context, see Lolcat and https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ceiling-cat --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
¿que? --Cart (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very high resolution, but what's with all that white? Is it differentiated in the original from any other white, or is the photo just attached to a whitewashed ceiling? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all that white space is so that you can use it for whatever meme text you care to add to this particular Ceiling Cat photo. And to be clear, it's not a photo on a ceiling but an art installation. To put it bluntly, some artists took a dead stuffed cat and put it in a hole in an art gallery ceiling, to make a sort of 3D version of the internet occurrence called Ceiling Cat. --Cart (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I hope this is seen as a valid reason to oppose, but the artwork holds no interest for me. The image quality is very good, but I think when I judge a digital reproduction of artwork I judge it in part on what merits I believe it holds as well as on the quality of the reproduction. This may be an internet curiosity but I don't see it as interesting or important art. Cmao20 (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose likely the original photo this is recreating was a live cat, but this is taxidermy.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Making the taxidermy look so realistic is, in my opinion, an impressive feat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't work for me. Basically, I don't find this cat interesting, then I don't like the very large white background, and to finish there are technical issues in my opinion, some parts seem overexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The "large white background" is necessary to show that this is a ceiling and clearly connect this piece to the meme. The ceiling is as much a subject of the work as the cat. This is not a work about a cat. It is a work about the meme. It plays on the ideas of originality, reproduction, derivative works, appropriation and plagiarism. It challenges you to ask "what is original at all?" in this age of social media, the internet, and wide proliferation of copies of images. Can appropriated works be considered original? Can a derivative work be considered artistic? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of questions you ask but that don't come to my mind when I look at this image. "Just a boring cat" is still my main impression. The artist may have spent a lot of time on lolcats everywhere on facebook, but I haven't, and feel ok without -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And my take on it is that philosophizing doesn't make a whole bunch of white more interesting to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My take on it would be that the concept of Ceiling Cat is funny and philosophically interesting, as a sculpture/installation IRL it is good, but unfortunately it doesn't translate into a good photo. Perhaps if there was someone interacting with this Ceiling Cat, it would make a really good photo. (For the record: I love LOLcats. I have made many myself, some with my old now departed cat posing for them. I have books with them. I look them up online. But most of them would not make good photos.) --Cart (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, I'm sorry your cat passed away. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the circle of life. Most pets don't live as long as we do. Still miss her though. --Cart (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evening on Kathleen Lake.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2020 at 23:12:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
Info Kathleen Lake, Kluane National Park and Reserve, Yukon, Canada. A nice composition of one of the most scenic lakes in the Yukon territory. created by JakubFrys - uploaded by JakubFrys - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very dramatic, and with a bonus of driftwood that looks like a hand! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition with special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful light --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of those that I truly wish I could have been the one to take. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible picture, very nice light and scenery! --Domob (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pavillon Jacquet in Nancy (5).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2020 at 21:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Elegant, very satisfying form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not usually attracted to architecture photos like this, but there is an air of "Phantom of the Opera" over this that thrills me. --Cart (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart, I can completely see that! Cmao20 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Sharpness at the top could be better. -- XRay ^talk 05:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some barrel distortion, look at the cornice at the top Poco a poco (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Of course it would be nice to fix the barrel distortion (spotted by Poco, thanks!). --Aristeas (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per the others. Very nice, but indeed the barrel distortion is a bit disturbing (and should be fixable). --Domob (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Street crowd reflecting in the polyhedral mirrors of the station Tokyu Plaza Omotesando, Harajuku, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 04:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really cool! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! ----Wright Streetdeck 06:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very cool indeed! MartinD (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Cmao20 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, indeed! Basile, it's fantastic! --Dinkum (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool indeed.--Peulle (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a giant kaleidoscope! --Llez (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superwow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun --Podzemnik (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can get lost in this one for a few minutes ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as disorienting at full resolution as in the thumbnail — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Holy Trinity Cathedral Sunset.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 11:23:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info created by User:SSneg - uploaded by User:SSneg - nominated by SSneg -- SSneg (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SSneg (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably a nice view but way too over-processed. According to the EXIF, a lot of the post-processing settings are at max/100. Try not to have such a heavy hand when you edit the photo and it will come out more natural. --Cart (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basically per Cart. Looks good as a thumbnail, but has some technical issues.--Peulle (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like an incredible sight, but I feel that the saturation is simply too high. Maybe have a go at processing it a bit more naturally and you might get a better reception. I'm not sure it's entirely sharp too. Cmao20 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated oppose I haven't had to say this in a while, but this image justifies saying it again: What featured pictures look like on Instagram. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @Daniel Case: You can say that again! We are Wikimedia Commons, for crying out loud, not a social media site. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. Looks very stunning in the preview, but then it also looks too unreal as well as not so good anymore at 100%. --Domob (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Installation auf dem Palastbrücke in St.Petersburg 2H1A3066WI.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 10:00:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Category:Featured pictures of Russia
Info created by Kora27 - uploaded by Kora27 - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper 10:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Junior Jumper 10:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the photo, but can we please have geocoding? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the un-symmetry, the light on the left side is disturbing. Also a typo in the filename. "...auf der...". -- -donald- (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Intrusive red light at the left is distracting in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif but I agree with Basile about the red light, and it would be better if symmetrical. Cmao20 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others. Nice try, nothing wrong with trying, but sometimes our reach does exceed our grasp. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know if I did this right. There was no properly-formed Featured Picture category for this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taeniopygia bichenovii 1 - Glen Alice.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 06:49:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Estrildidae_(Estrildid_Finch)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. If we know what the birds' sexes are, it would be good to include that information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the one on the left is probably male, and the one on the right I'm not sure about. The width of the bars is supposed to be an indication. JJ Harrison (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ssprmannheim (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Domob (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--GRDN711 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Estrildidae_(Estrildid_Finch)

File:Panorama of Valletta.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2020 at 12:47:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created & uploaded by Olga Prystai - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, it's a pretty view, but I don't find the composition anything great (for example, the crops right and especially left feel arbitrary), and it's just too noisy and unsharp to be an FP in 2020, in my opinion, considering the great panoramas we've been featuring - and indeed the much sharper, unnoisier ones than this that have been voted down. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. Definitely a nice view and colours, but just not special enough for a FP. --Domob (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no. Poor overall quality, very noisy, tilted. Certainly a nice moment but not at all an outstanding photograph. --Kreuz schnabel 16:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acanthosaura crucigera.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 06:24:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Agamidae_(Dragon_Lizards)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too shallow DOF. --Hockei (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - This looks tiny. Could anyone say how big this lizard grows to be? The Wikipedia article about it is a stub. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated. --Cart (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Thank you. So it's not like a little gecko, what with it being about 25 cm long. Whereupon, though I like the photo and find it valuable, I doubt it's really up to the quality of the best wildlife - or, for that matter, reptile - pictures we feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support DoF is quite shallow, but the eyes are sharp and IMHO this is certainly a great shot. --Domob (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Hockei. The head of the animal is not equally sharp everywhere.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:大龍峒保安宮，位於臺灣臺北市大同區保安里、鄰近臺北孔子廟的保生大帝廟.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2020 at 18:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by Sdfery - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - So colorful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little noisy in places but has immense wow-factor. Cmao20 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unreal. Look at the GoogleMaps satellite view (though the coords may be wrong; if so, have to be fixed at the very least). Anyway, the water and reflection seems unnatural: clouds are in the reflection but not in the sky; something has gone wrong with the left building. And I don't think there is ever such a big and clean puddle at this spot. --A.Savin 04:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a dream --Killarnee (T•R•P) 04:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture is indeed stunning, but I agree with A.Savin that some things seem unreal. --Domob (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per the above reasoning. --Domob (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A.Savin. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alexander --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per supporters. Amazing photo. ---TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 17th edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --Cart (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm inclined to agree with A.Savin. There are plenty of tutorials on YouTube about how to create "puddle reflections". However, even with Photoshop, you can't change the angle of the reflection. A reflection is always like if you look up from underneath the subject, like you can see in this photo. A quick cut-paste-turn in Photoshop of this photo shows that the reflection has exactly the same angle as the 'normal' buildings, only a slightly different version so probably a photo taken before or after the first. This of course made me suspicious of the other reflection nom we have. That one looks like it could be the real deal since the angle between the monk and the wall behind him are different and there are several photos made with that puddle and apparently from the same rainy day. Or it could be better done in PS, hard to tell. --Cart (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel duty-bound to respect experts who think the photo was dishonestly manipulated, so I've pulled my supporting vote. But perhaps Sdfery could come and address this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Left below the centerline is also something wrong.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination didn't notice the fake clouds. Tomer T (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mandevilla boliviensis.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2020 at 06:18:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Gentianales
Info: all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this is definitely QI but I'm not sure it's sharp enough for FP in the competitive genre of flower photos. I'd need a sharper image to support what is, for me, a flower that doesn't have that much visual wow. Cmao20 (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite puzzled by the often expressed notion that due to the overabundance of flower photos being nominated, more stringent standards need to apply. Right now, this is the only active flower nomination. I've been a fairly regular visitor over the last 6 months, and this situation is quite representative. Compared to the amount of landscape and architecture photos that gets nominated, we are hardly overwhelmed by flowers, and yet the myth that we are continues to perpetuate, for some reason... --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I think the problem is that it's easy to take a pretty picture of a flower because, well, flowers are pretty, but for an FP I'd want something exceptional either in composition, subject (unusual or especially beautiful flower) or resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but who decided that taking a flower photo is easy? This might be the case for extremely common plants like dandelions or house plants, when a photographer has a total control of the environment. Doing any sort of macro photography outside the studio setting is not a trivial task. First of all, there is a question of access. Most of us live in the urban areas of the Northern Hemisphere, so we're not exactly spoiled with an abundance of rare and exotic plants. I've had to literally crawl on the ground and bushwhack, while being attacked by clouds of various bloodsuckers to get some photos. This one is from a greenhouse, so nothing too extreme, but even so, the awkward angle of the flower and the movement of air provided enough of a challenge. Overall, I would say that to produce a decent flower photo has on average required more effort from me compared to my landscape and architecture photos. My point it, we should assess the candidates on their explicit merits alone without arbitrarily applying stricter criteria based on the preconceived notions of whether the shot was easy to take or not. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good photo but IMHO not outstanding.The composition does not work for me. Sorry. --Dinkum (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao and Dinkum. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green-Wood Cemetery (62021).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2020 at 05:09:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#United_States
Info Cherry blossoms falling in front of a mausoleum at Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, NY. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support peaceful scene feels a little mono no aware. thanks Cmao20 for the suggestion. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments on Rhododendrites' talk page. An elegant and painterly scene. Cmao20 (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Certainly a beautiful scene and a pleasant atmosphere, but this doesn't add up to a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light too harsh, CA, and what appears to be meant the main subject is tilted. --Kreuz schnabel 16:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Tilted, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Chrysococcyx osculans - Glen Davis.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2020 at 09:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Cuculidae_(Cuckoos)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2020 (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. --Cart (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.10.15.-26-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Herbst-Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 13:23:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata# : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support We already have a similar FP but this one has a better quality. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good one, but I think this should probably be a delist&replace per Podzemnik's point. Cmao20 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think so. Recently here were promoted a mushroom. Two very similar pictures of one mushroom. Both this and this. So, why should my other one be delisted? It's even another species and not the same as the pictures of the mushroom. --Hockei (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I didn't vote for the second nomination of that mushroom; I voted neutral, for the same reason as here. I never support two similar images both being FP. If we feature two images of the same species/building/landscape etc. that don't complement each other (i.e. a night shot and a day shot, or a male and a female of a particular species, or two massively different angles/compositions, would be fine for me) then we can't really say we are promoting the 'most valuable pictures from all others' as the guidelines say. Instead we should identify which is the better of those two images, keep that, and delist the other. Most FPC voters seem to disagree with me though, and your image is going to pass anyway without my support. Cmao20 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem that you won't support it. I understand your position. But the (not unchangeable) rules must apply equally to everyone so I won't delist&replace it. --Hockei (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top Poco a poco (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata# : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)

File:Cambodia. Water buffaloes.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2020 at 23:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Dmitry Makeev(talk) 23:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Knopik-som (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the earth tones and the detail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel is right about the detail, and the composition of the portrait is pleasing and restful. I'm sorry for the water buffalo, though, because he is being attacked by flies, poor thing. :( -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support And seven --Llez (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great photo. But I must have none of the rope through the nose!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Famberhorst. It is a terrible sight. Also the grass in the foreground disturbs me in this picture. --Hockei (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a terrible sight, but I won't oppose on that basis. The most I do in cases in which I can't emotionally stomach supporting a photo is not vote on it. Examples of when I did include a photo of a heroic equestrian statue of noted Jew-mass-murderer Khmelnitsky, and I also couldn't bring myself to vote on the picture of the sphynx kitten that doesn't merit being opposed on the basis of picture quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just express my aversion to animal suffering. Changes usually start small.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If animal cruelty were the subject of the picture, I might have a different perspective then. But that's not the issue, I see how cruelty to animals is taken for granted by simply taking a "nice" picture of an animal and not seeing the suffering or not caring. Not to forget the grass. Otherwise good quality, no question. --Hockei (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Hockei Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per hockei. It's not that I would oppose something like this purely on ethical grounds, but the ethics of it does raise the "wow" bar for me. In this case, I probably would've just abstained if the rope weren't there. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Edificio de Correos y Telégrafos, Valencia, España, 2014-06-30, DD 130-132 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2020 at 15:50:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Spain
Info Dome of the Palace of Post and Telegraf of Valencia, Spain. The building, located in the City Hall Square, was built between 1915 and 1923, by architect Miguel Ángel Navarro in eclectic style and still provide post services today. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful motif. Impossible to get a wider crop all-round? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: do you mean that I should increase the canvas size overall? Easy edit but I'm not sure about that, the black area is not for real and if it would be a gif file, that area would be transparent, that's why I don't understand the purpose of increasing that area --Poco a poco (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, I want to see what this room really looks like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at photos in the category. I think this crop is not good. I don't know what the best solution is, but this isn't it, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just looked at the first version. I agree with Cmao20 that it's the best version. It breathes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek I can offer an alt version of somebody else shares your opinion Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also object that the black background is not described among the modifications and is nothing anyone would see when they visit the place. Please add it to the enumerated modifications in the "Retouched" notice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, Done Poco a poco (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ for now. Poco, I don't think this is as well-edited as it could be. I'd invite reviewers to take a look at the file history, and to compare the sharpness of this version to that of 25th August 2014. The older version is clearly much sharper than the current one. I can see why you have made the edits, cropping out the edges to remove the ghost on the left, but they have had a detrimental effect on the image quality. The version of 2014, even with the ghost there, is a fairly solid FP to me, because of the good image quality and the beauty of the motif. Cmao20 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Cmao20, agree, somehow during the editing process some sharpness got lost. Please, check the last version --Poco a poco (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for improving the sharpness. I still think the original is the best, but this is FP for me now. Cmao20 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Andrei (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Wright Streetdeck 06:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If I judge this in a vacuum as a picture, without considering how the motif looks in real life, I have to say it's cropped too tightly on all sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burgemeester Halsema-daphnechannahorn.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 21:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Daphne Channa Horn - uploaded by Ciell - nominated by Ciell -- Ciell (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ciell (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a strong wow photo and the child at the right edge is also spoiling the composition. --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michielverbeek. Nothing too special. --Domob (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice subject, but per Michiel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Ciell (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asperitas bimaensis cochlostyloides viridis 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2020 at 10:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the most unusual shells you've photographed. Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a colour! --Podzemnik (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subreal --Wilfredor (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Green! per Podzemnik -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect color, contrast and quality! --SSneg (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wilfredor Poco a poco (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 18:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Church of Antipia and Lazarevskaya Church - Suzdal.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2020 at 23:46:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by Dmitry Makeev -- Knopik-som (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Knopik-som (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight composition --Wilfredor (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the cable on the right side of the tower is annoying. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it just me or are the buildings ever so slightly tilted to the right a couple degrees? --SSneg (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: what other active nomination does Dmitry have besides File:Cambodia. Water buffaloes.jpg? Tomer T (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer T, I see now that I misread File:Cat Sphynx. Kittens. img 11.jpg, which is his photo but your nomination. Tag removed and my sincere apology to you and Knopik-som. --Cart (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Wilfredor. The buildings are certainly nice, but the composition is indeed too tight for me. --Domob (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose, more or less per others: Beautiful towers, good picture, but not a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 06:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Night view of Mestia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2020 at 23:03:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Georgia
Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours. Square crop is a bit unusual but I think it works here. Cmao20 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Beautiful, but seems too purple. Also, shouldn't geocoodinates be required at least for FP, even if QI noms are routinely passed in spite of lacking them? Finally, the size is sufficient but if there's a larger version, that should be uploaded. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm never a fan of dark images in general, and this one has too little interesting content in my view. Just a few lights in the night -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Impressive in full view but I cannot see a clear subject here (where’s the memorial?), and the missing geocoordinates earn a "no" for me. --Kreuz schnabel 07:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info the entire village and its rural development is treated as a single monument. --Andrei (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might work with the mountaintop and sky cropped out. But still needs coords. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if changing the colour balance would boost it; at least the mountains and the sky look unnatural to me, reducing purple, at least in the top part, would be good. --Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 06:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.10.15.-23-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Blattwespe-Euura salicis-Larve.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 21:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info ~~I upscaled this picture by a factor of 1.5x.~~ All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great photo, but I'd like an opinion on whether it's OK to enlarge photos for FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upscaled images have been a no-no at FPC as long as I've been here. There is nothing gained quality-wise by upscaling an image; the only thing that happens is that a too small image becomes technically eligible for FPC. --Cart (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed there is no rule that says that upscaling a picture is not allowed (Digital manipulations). If you want to introduce this rule, discuss it beforehand in the talk page. Before you technically assess the image, first compare it with the original version that still has 3.5 MP. It's not just scaled up. And what is bad, when a picture is upscaled a bit so that you can look at it better? The result is decisive. Last but not least, I didn't hide this "manipulation", so long as it is a manipulation at all. --Hockei (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the no to upscaling is more of a practice than a written rule, it serves no purpose for the image quality. There are plenty of things that we object to here that are not written in the rules. You don't need to write down everything if common sense is used. As for looking at the picture, with today's computers and monitors, you can crank up the magnification as far as you like. Better to keep the images in their original size. --Cart (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ For me upscaling should always be done client-side if wanted, because uploading an upscaled image to Commons is really just adding file size without adding any extra information or quality. This is a good photo and a good QI but I'm not sure it has enough real detail to be an FP, we have sharper photos at this resolution. This said, I do appreciate you were honest and open about the fact that it's upscaled. And no, it isn't a written rule, but I can't really think of a reason why it's ever worth it. Cmao20 (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~per upscaling and arguing "there is no rule".~~ Please don't do that: you can't require all possible reasons for opposing be pre-codified in rules. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot to say. Then it's an opinion that doesn't entitled to pretend this it's a rule. --Hockei (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Category:Insect larvae FPs, I see most modern images are 13MP+ and have superior subject isolation and more typical setting. Unlike the flying versions, these are relatively easy to approach in order to fill the frame with the bug. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really cannot confirm what you say about the quality of the pictures in this category that are comparable with my picture. But anyway, thank you so much for changing of your reason for your vote against. --Hockei (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info So then, @Colin, Cmao20, and Ikan Kekek: I've set it back to the original version even if I don't share your opinion, at least partially . And Cart, I always use my common sense. My monitor has a resolution of 3,840x2,160 pixels. And I compared both versions exactly. Nothing in the scaled version got lost it's even better. --Hockei (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice image that could have been, but in 2020 we really should have higher resolution images to call them FPs, especially when the camera is capable of 20Mpx. I'm not in favour of changing the original resolution of an image either, so that won't help. --Peulle (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the insect was small and in hectic movement. Also I couldn't get nearer for this picture because of the tree trunk. --Hockei (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info I uploaded the upscaled version under a different name. --Hockei (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin and Cmao20: Would you be so kind and change your reason for your rejection in a valid reason or remove it? It is meanwhile invalid because it no longer applies. Thanks in advance. --Hockei (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at least. It's better than the upscaled version but I'm still not sure it has enough pixel-level detail at this resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:011-Temple of the Emerald Buddha.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2020 at 20:22:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by Nawit science - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp reflection and I like the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice reflection -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. I would request more location information in the description, so that the viewer doesn't have to click the category at the bottom to find out what part of Thailand this wat is in. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to match the photo with other photos in the category, trying to estimate the location, nothing matched. I then noticed that Tomer T had moved the photo to a category with another monument ID than the one on the photo, no idea why (the tempel is part of the Grand Palace complex). Anyway, back in the right category and moved to sub-category, there were other photos from sort of this angle and I did find a likely spot for the photo. The street view match nicely. At first I looked for a pool of some kind, no luck, looks like the photographer had taken advantage of a large puddle in the street after a rain. Very creative. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to move it to a more precise sub-category because it had a too general one. I'm not sure how it ended up with the wrong category, that obviously wasn't my intention, I guess the reason is related to the identical prefixes of those temples, and to the auto-completion of HotCat. Anyways, thanks for correcting. Tomer T (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, thank you for taking care of this. Tomer T, thank you for finding and nominating this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support OK for FP as is, though I think it might be improved by cropping in on both sides so the symmetry of the rising and falling spires stands out more. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kakadu (AU), Kakadu National Park, Jim Jim Creek -- 2019 -- 4239.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2020 at 06:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wish you could have gotten reflections of the treetops of the tall trees in the photo, but these kinds of things can be overemphasized, and I find it very pretty and good to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I'm not wowed by this, cropped reflections doesn't help either. --Ivar (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo but no FP for me. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Was a bit unsure about this one – it’s a nice scenery but the crop is just too arbitrary, Ivar nailed it. The trees look definitely overexposed. --Kreuz schnabel 07:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a pity because there is a lot of potential but the crop does not work for me. --Dinkum (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should have been a clear slam dunk FP, but missed. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per the other opposers. Nice view overall, but the cropped reflections are indeed disturbing and in general is it not absolutely stunning to me. --Domob (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sylvestr Lake during the sunrise, Kahurangi, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2020 at 08:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Tasman_(Te_Tai-o-Aorere)
Info All by me. This is one of my first shots of 2020, taken just after 5am on January 1st. I like the light, the composition and the overall atmosphere. -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. Keep 'em coming! Cmao20 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cmao20: Will do! I might have a few more candidates from my summer hikes :) --Podzemnik (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'm fed up with New Zealand landscapes, this one is not to resist. --A.Savin 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems quite soft, but definitely "wow" for me. --Domob (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I've said it before, but you should really get some work from the NZ tourism bureau. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•R•P) 04:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Love comes to you and you follow
Lose one on to the heart of the sunrise ...
Lost on a wave that you're dreaming
Dream on, on to the heart of the sunrise ..."
This is almost the landscape I have envisioned listening to that song ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. But I miss the glow in the sky on the right a bit. Maybe it's why I don't see all colours, hm. --Hockei (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Tasman_(Te_Tai-o-Aorere)

File:View towards Lookout Range from John Reid Hut, Kahurangi, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2020 at 08:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Tasman_(Te_Tai-o-Aorere)
Info All by me. I like the light and how the layers complement each other. -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great as usual. Sidenote: While your photos from New Zealand are stunning, they have ruined things for me. During the holidays, the TV network here showed all the LOTR/Hobbit movies. They were double magical for me since I had never seen that landscape before and it really was Middle-earth for me. But seeing them again, I now recognized several landscape vistas from your photos. Spell broken. ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. Cmao20 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not 100% sure but in the note I added I believe to see a dust spot, I have no other explanation for that area to be much darker then the surroundings Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Poco a poco: True true, thanks for spotting it. I've fixed that. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 18:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Tasman_(Te_Tai-o-Aorere)

File:Bergtocht van Prasüras,door het Val Trupchun naar Alp Purcher 18-09-2019. (actm.) 07.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2020 at 16:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info Fascinating play of lines of small water streams that converge at the bottom of the erosion field where the river bed starts. Here one of the tributaries of the Ova da Varusch arises.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought this might be a bit bright at first, but at full size it looks natural. Cmao20 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lines. --Cart (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't know how much further the hill on the left would have extended to get to the top and might have wanted to see more, but the photo as is is certainly quite interesting and stimulating to look at, so I won't second-guess it. Very nice variations of texture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely and well composed photo with many interesting areas of various natural environments from forest and grassland to alpine. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ➡︎ An Austrian strews manure on the frozen Lake Constance in winter. A Swiss man comes and says: "Ha, you're smart, it's thawing in spring and the dung is sinking in the lake!" Then the Austrian: "Be quiet. The Piefke is coming soon. He wants to buy the field!" --Killarnee (T•R•P) 04:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is for sure the place where Die Höhlenkinder lived. -- -donald- (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van Prasüras,door het Val Trupchun naar Alp Purcher 18-09-2019. (actm.) 14.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2020 at 16:06:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info A wonderful example of folded rock. This arose during the mountain formation of the Alps, some 40 million years ago. Such folds are created by large horizontal pressure in this case from Africa.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture when accompanied with explanation of the geological phenomenon. Cmao20 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first, I didn't realize the scale of it! --Cart (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question What tipped you off to the scale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For me it was first the water below. For a "by the water" person like me, running water usually gives me a sense of how large something is. Then I noticed the tree up left, looks like a young larch, and last the tufts of dandelion leaves in the crevices around it. --Cart (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks tend to be fractal and thus give little sense of scale. For this reason, instructive shots of rocks (in academic papers, for instance) tend to include a scale object or a scale. See Category:Rocks with objects for scale and Template talk:NoCoins#Coins are a good maesurement for scale. HLHJ (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fascinating. I thought this was a macro before I clicked on the image. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These rocks absolutely leave me without emotion. And I don't understand the composition with the river at the corner -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Really useful for an encyclopedia, so an excellent VI and a QI, but though it's interesting from an informational standpoint, the composition leaves me cold like Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Folds are one of the most common textures of rocks, and this is definitely not the clearest example of a fold. The composition is not pleasing. —kallerna (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna --Fischer.H (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Not bad and certainly useful but nothing special. --Kreuz schnabel 11:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wow factor for me are the unique circular folds of the figure. Completely detached from the more or less horizontal folds in this steep rock wall. I had never seen it so beautiful before. So it is not that normal. Beautiful architecture of mother earth.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No doubt there are impressive rock folds, and this might well be one of them. It’s just not a very impressive photograph of it IMHO. Just my opinion :) --Kreuz schnabel 07:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Kreuz. Also unsharp up top. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice to look at and an interesting geology picture, but not special for FP in my view. --Domob (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to what others have written above, it's not even a very useful or well-done geological photograph. As you can see from Cart's comment above, the scale of a geological photograph can be very difficult to estimate. Because of that, photos in geologic papers and textbooks always include some kind of scale. It doesn't even need to be exact, but it needs to be easy to recognize and interpret – which is why you'll routinely find geologist's hammers, coins, lens caps or geologists in those pictures. --El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epinephelus lanceolatus.jpeg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2020 at 06:35:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Class_:_Actinopterygii_(Ray-finned_Fish)
Info: all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one a lot. It's pretty good quality considering you had to use ISO 1000. Cmao20 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since flash photography is not allowed in the aquarium, one has to be creative in the moment and while post-processing. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any chance to get a full size photo? --Podzemnik (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Class_:_Actinopterygii_(Ray-finned_Fish)

File:Road in Bílá Voda (Weißwasser).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2020 at 09:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Czech_Republic
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, really strong presence and forward line. However, maybe I missed it, but I'm not seeing geographic coordinates. Exact ones would be appreciated, but at least approximate them as closely as possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added coordinates :) --Pudelek (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly nice but I cannot see anything special here, just a straightforward, slightly underexposed tree-lined autumnal road, no wow. Rather soft for its small size too. --Kreuz schnabel 11:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Peulle (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow for me. -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a pretty sight and nice to look at, but a bit unimaginative compositionally; maybe I'm jaded from living in the countryside, but there are views like this on plenty of country lanes. Cmao20 (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just seems to be trying too hard, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20. Nice view, but IMHO not special enough for FP. --Domob (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wayside cross - Malsch 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2020 at 10:43:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info OK, here a compo with only one tree; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice photo, to be sure, but I'm not seeing anything here that makes this one of the finest images on Commons. The wow factor just isn't there.--Peulle (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the shrine and tree. I think if you crop in considerably to the left on the right side and possibly just a tad in to the right on the left side, it might be an FP. I'll try posting an approximate suggested crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Cropped as suggested --Llez (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is OK for me. Composition is a lot better than your other nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, sorry. It has to be outstanding, not just OK. --Ivar (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry – busy, distracting background, uninspired frontal view, weak quality towards the edges, harsh light, glaring leaves. Nice but by no means outstanding IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 21:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Kreuzschnabel. Maybe a different view (less frontal) would give a nicer composition? --Domob (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cappella di San Carlo.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2020 at 06:35:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info: abandoned St. Charles Chapel in the Ligurian Alps in the process of being obscured by vegetation. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition, harsh light. This doesn't look like an excellent image to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose+1--Peulle (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with the above. Image quality is fine as usual, but I'm not sure there is an FP to be had of this motif, certainly not from this angle. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Autumnal trees - Malsch 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2020 at 16:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, not a great composition to me. I don't automatically have a problem with trees being cropped in the middle like on the right side, but my eyes aren't moving around the picture frame in a fluid or very compelling way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, I'm sort of with Ikan. Doing a compo with two main objects with about the same size is never easy as opposed to compos with one or three. With two you almost always get an empty void in the middle of the photo and that, like here, can look inharmonious. --Cart (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty but IMO not outstanding enough to be FP. Also the details are a little bit smudgy in places - not enough to oppose on its own, but I feel the image quality is somehow not quite up to your usual standard. Can't think why that might be at ISO 100... Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oer others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. The composition is not outstanding enough for me. Perhaps it would have been better to focus just on the one tree with red leaves? --Domob (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Nice but nothing special. --Kreuzschnabel 06:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sentry box of Wartburg Castle (5).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2020 at 21:08:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really pretty early morning atmosphere. Maybe a bit of a sharpening halo on the tower at the left? Cmao20 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment love the composition and atmosphere, but with this big fat sharpening halo along the turret I can't support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Grafo (talk • contribs) --Cart (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere. -- -donald- (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine with the processing. Seen worst promoted. - Benh (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per El Grafo and there are 2 dust spots (see notes) Poco a poco (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support It looks it's floating in the sky! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now. I didn't want to disrupt the nomination with an early oppose because of something that could be fixed. But unfortunately it doesn't look like the flaws introduced in post will be fixed, so I can not support. I expect this to succeed regardless, so my oppose won't hurt. --El Grafo (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, it's better? Tournasol7 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why did you darken the photo, and why so much? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, for this reason I didn't want to change nothing... Now I have brightened up, is it better? Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one pedantic reviewer (= me) opposing because of one stupid little detail while almost everyone else seems to be OK with it. In the grand scheme of things, my opinion does not matter. This is your work, and if trying to fix the "issue" forces you into compromises you are not willing to make, then don't listen to me. You've fixed the halo, but lost some over-all contrast and sharpness. Personally, I like this version much better, as I think it suits the mood (although I think you went a bit too far when brightening the shadows). Others will disagree, and that's OK. Anyway, here's my Support. --El Grafo (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I like it, but it is too soft for me. --Hockei (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer the original warm light on the sentry box, but I'm OK with this. To me, these changes in light are substantial, and I would support pinging everyone who's voted, but some people might consider this a minor change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alpenblick vom Napoleonseck.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 17:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info View from the Napoleonseck near Tengen-Watterdingen (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) to the Swiss Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the sphere --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull, underexposed foreground (which makes large portion of the whole image). —kallerna (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I kind of agree with kallerna. The clouds and grass aren't that interesting to me, and I don't think this adds up to an unusually good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It must have been a nice view but the composition is not the best - especialy the foreground is rather ordinary. Also, I think that for shots like this you need a tripod. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the other opposers. --Domob (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info We see the Alps from a distance of around 150 km. Such a clear view from a location below 1000 m is exceptional. The lighting situation (light on the fog, shading of the mountains by high clouds) shows the Alps particularly clearly. I also like how the Bisberg emerges from the fog. --Milseburg (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik. -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps cutting is nicer at the bottom. But special effect for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delleboersterheide, natuurgebied van het It Fryske Gea. (d.j.b) 10.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 16:07:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Group of oaks Quercus.
Info Delleboersterheide, nature reserve of the It Fryske Gea. Group of oaks Quercus in mild winter light.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special IMO. —kallerna (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss a more special lighting here to compensate the lack of wow, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I would like it if it was just one tree and/or a bluer sky. It needs to be starker. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is special. --Milseburg (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think it captures the Dutch winter light (such as there is...) quite nicely. MartinD (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light but lacks wow for me too, plus it’s rather soft. Could be more interesting from a shorter distance with wide-angle. --Kreuz schnabel 21:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason to be nominated for FP. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think you are late with your vote.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, invalid vote. It was made 7 minutes after the nomination ended. --Cart (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sankt Aegidius Kirchaich Altar -20200105-RM-153633.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 14:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 14:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 14:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not totally sharp at full size, but full size is huge, and the altar actually is pretty sharp at full size. Very nice church, good natural light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would change the description: The photo does not show just “Pulpit of the St. Ägidius church in Kirchaich”, but a view of the interior of the church. --Aristeas (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Tnaks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good but not my favourite of your church interiors. A bit too much floor and not enough of the more interesting ceiling for me. Quality is fine considering the high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20. Also slightly underexposed, and no wow for me. —kallerna (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imho it's not outstanding. --Ivar (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose non-symmetrical cut, extreme distortion, too much space dedicated to the seats and not to the altar --Wilfredor (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I can't help but think the image is slightly rotated clockwise. --SSneg (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kakadu National Park (AU), Marrakai Road -- 2019 -- 3765.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 14:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely shot. Couldn't be anywhere except Australia! Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Empty, rural road. Nothing special imo. —kallerna (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, no wow for me (light and compo are imho not outstanding). --Ivar (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a good shot, but per the other opposers (nothing too striking for me). --Domob (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharpness issues for me, appearing to be focused on the foreground gravel. Composition might work better with crop suggested (rule of thirds). --Kreuz schnabel 07:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sněžka (Śnieżka, Schneekoppe), Krkonoše mountains 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2020 at 12:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Czech_Republic
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice QI that shows the mountain very well but the light and composition is a bit boring for FP. There's nothing at all wrong with it, but it doesn't strike me as outstanding. Cmao20 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Ivar (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting composition and the view. More special light would make it more wowy though. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Check category. Most of the pic including the viewpoint is on the Polish side. --Kreuzschnabel 11:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- category is ok: photo is from the Czech site and most of the picture is also in the Czech Republic --Pudelek (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You’re right, I was a bit mistaken about the perspective. Sorry. Still, Geocoordinates are a must on the file description page. Somewhere about here I suppose. --Kreuz schnabel 15:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20 - good picture but no "wow" for me. --Domob (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corniglia dal Sentiero Azzurro.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2020 at 23:25:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info: distant view of Corniglia from the Azure Trail, Cinque Terre, Italy; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not very sharp, blotchy sky, no outstanding composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stunnig subject but the light and the quality are not very exciting. Stitched panorama under better light conditions could definitely work though. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. The subject is nice and the picture good (maybe a bit soft), but the composition and light are not outstanding. --Domob (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light too harsh, leading to many overexposed or at least washed-out areas and blueish colours. Sea and sky are rather noisy. The sky colour seems to switch from turquoise to purple in the center. Special nitpick: the horizon is rising slightly to the right, maybe a 0.01 degree tilt :) --Kreuzschnabel 07:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would be nice to use the {{Panorama}} template on stitched images. --Kreuz schnabel 07:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Too ordinary.--Peulle (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]