Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2017

File:London Bees v Millwall Lionesses, 15 April 2017 (062).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2017 at 20:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info London Bees's Jo Wilson during warm-ups before FA WSL 2 match against Millwall Lionesses match on 15 April 2017. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like this and the action of the photo, it brings to mind Zlatan's bicycle kick but I think it would be better to crop the pic to concentrate on Wilson since the players on the left side are a bit distracting and it is also impossible to make a cut there without cutting a person. (~~See crop suggestion)~~ Let's hear what the rest of the folks here has to say. --cart-Talk 20:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version, but would be interested to see what a cropped version would look like. Seb26 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (cropped)

Info Cropped version as suggested by W.carter. @W.carter and Seb26: -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Prefer this cropped version; nice action shot. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. And rare. --Mile (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better, thanks! --cart-Talk 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Support this version as well. -- KTC (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 05:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice catch! --PierreSelim (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad background --Claus 09:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

The chosen alternative is: File:London Bees v Millwall Lionesses, 15 April 2017 (062) (cropped).jpg

File:Dechantlacke - Lobau Wien-2475.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 22:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info uploaded by Hubertl - nominated by by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sort of endearing when you look at it at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful in general and in specifics. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a frozen little fountain in the middle of the lake. --cart-Talk 09:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I liked about it. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juan Griego Sunset.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 00:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All by The Photographer 00:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality could be a tad better but the calm, restful evening mood of the photo wins me over. --cart-Talk 09:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support@W.carter: Complementary to your similar series in Lysekil harbor last fall ... another picture that perfectly accompanies Lush's "Monochrome". Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak Wow. Just a (beautiful) sunset. --XRay ^talk 08:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coughton Court east view.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2017 at 07:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- DeFacto (talk). 07:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DeFacto (talk). 07:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice composition, but parts of the building aren't very sharp. Could you do something about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've sharpened the north and south wings a bit Ikan Kekek. DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support Still wish it could be sharper, but it's still a nice near-symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now because I'm having trouble considering this a really outstanding photo of this beautiful motif, as I'm not satisfied with the sharpness. Maybe I'm being shallow in some way, but I'm not feeling that wowed. If there were more light on the courtyard, etc., that might make me feel differently (of course I realize that rain and overcast skies are much more typical of English weather). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loxura atymnus-Kadavoor-2017-04-23-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 05:47:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Loxura atymnus, Yamfly, is a species of Lycaenidae found in Asia. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 05:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 05:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 08:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pure art. Nice to see your butterflies again, I have missed them and you here at FPC. :) --cart-Talk 09:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summer rain started here. And we're ready for the festival of continuous rains! :) J e e 09:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good moving - setted correct. --Mile (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours. -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excelent image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loved that colors! ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice and lovely colors. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great colours. Charles (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kyrgyz women and child offering bread and salt.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 20:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Theklan (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pose and interesting, but it's noisy and there are visible dust spots. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharp enough. I would support with a crop at left. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong chromatic aberration and noise --The Photographer 12:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lifeguard tower - Morro Jable.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2017 at 14:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's nice and vibrant and I'm leaning toward support, but the image is a bit soft as if too much noise reduction has been applied. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done New version from raw-file uploaded --Llez (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support simple but interesting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colors. --cart-Talk 19:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A competent photo of a standard lifeguard tower. Nothing beyond a quality image for me. Daphne Lantier 22:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daphne. Good, but not interesting enough for FP, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm a sucker for blue and orange. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal composition --The Photographer 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good light and great colours. --Code (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Code. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need a few FPs like this to remind this is Commons; not Wikipedia. J e e 13:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --cart-Talk 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mile (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia, 2016-02-04, DD 16-18 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 21:00:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Scene in the Uyuni salt flat during sunrise, Daniel Campos Province, Potosí Department, southwesten Bolivia, not far from the crest of the Andes. This salt flat is, with a surface of 10,582 square kilometers (4,086 sq mi), the world's largest, and during the rain saison (December-February) offers spectacular reflexions. All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best pictures I've seen here for a while. --Code (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good photo of a lot of nothing. --cart-Talk 11:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I prefer the existing FPs to this one, but this is still featurable and wow -- Thennicke (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just wow! --PtrQs (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Statsbiblioteket læsesalen-2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 12:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The left side (in the column space with the image border) is not symmetric. Also noise and chromatic aberration --The Photographer 14:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done corrections made on noise, symmetri and CA. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, you could try too neat image like a noise reduction tool --The Photographer 11:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I really like this composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors, lighting and symmetry are good enough that I will forgive the posterization evident in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't resist a good library. --cart-Talk 08:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ^^ J e e 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good perespective. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minor leaning out at the left. Good composition. --XRay ^talk 08:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 12:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 17:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017 London Marathon - Men's Wheelchair.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 11:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info Hiroki Nishida leading the men's wheelchair race after approximately 25 and a quarter miles at the 2017 London Marathon. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot going on there ... the background competes closely with the subject for the viewer's attention—amd frankly the lead racer's expression just isn't dramatic and emotional enough to overcome that. There's also too much unsharpness around the image for a crop to work. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is good enough for QI but not for FP IMO. As Daniel said, there is too much unsharpness, the light is on the dull side and the shadows too deep with little detail, sorry. --cart-Talk 08:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nokia Networks Munich Office, April 2017.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2017 at 08:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info Nokia Networks, Munich office: Worm's-eye view with contrails; all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW!! This should be bought by Nokia and used in their ads. I like the not-perfectly-aligned way you have shot this, it gives you a sense of movement sort of like looking at Earth from a slowly rotating space station with lots of shiny monoliths heading for it. There is some color noise at the edges, but I'm sure you will take care of that. ;) --cart-Talk 10:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interestellar movie station --The Photographer 12:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good view. --Mile (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very good, though I think I'd prefer it without the plane and contrail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I agree with Ikan about the plane and contrail. This would be just about perfect without that. Daphne Lantier 18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a matter of taste maybe. Imo the plane adds another interesting element... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --cart-Talk 19:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On 2nd thought, I can't support with the disharmonious contrail. Daphne Lantier 21:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another FP in the category of "images that would make me think the band that would use this on their album cover made music I might find interesting and thus buy the album without knowing what it sounds like, especially if the back cover showed a couple of guys with European names standing behind their synthesizers" or "images that would make me pick the book up and thumb through it."
Yes, I like the idea of it without the contrail, and we could certainly make a cloned-out version, but that's not enough to offset all the other things about this one. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very mild Oppose, only because I favor the contrailless version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The contrail is a plus. --Yann (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative sans contrail

Info Ok guys, pinging cart, The Photographer, Mile, Ikan Kekek, Daphne Lantier, Daniel Case, an alternative without plane and contrail, taken half a minute later. Cloning by nature if you will.
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do prefer this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one. The contrail is a bit distracting in the other one, even though it is sharply captured with the plane -- the eye is drawn to the plane, rather than the building or the geometric forms. Also with this one the cloud pattern is better, looking almost like a globe with cloudy continents drifting on it. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either one deserves to be featured, but I still like the plane. --cart-Talk 08:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per my !vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect! Daphne Lantier 18:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Nokia Networks Munich Office, April 2017 -02.jpg

File:Ausblick von Burg Liebenstein.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 17:00:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The detail! Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be better if that bit of structure at right were cropped out. Daphne Lantier 23:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I like the bit of structure, though cropping it out wouldn't be likely to change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Structure at right should be cropped out. Daphne Lantier 19:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of the lighting, where most of the houses' visible sides are in shadow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. Not much wow to me. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King, light makes the scene lack saturation and color. Crop is also not ideal. — Julian H.^✈ 09:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mezquita de Nasirolmolk, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 66-68 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2017 at 18:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Colored windows seen from the interior of the Nasir-ol-Molk Mosque, also known as the Pink Mosque, a traditional mosque located in Shiraz district of Gowad-e-Arabān, Iran. The mosque was built from 1876 to 1888, by the order of Mirzā Hasan Ali (Nasir ol Molk), a Qajar ruler. Poc o² 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a pleasure to see a picture of this beautiful mosque again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. — Julian H.^✈ 10:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Панорама на Лазарополе.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 13:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way this one uses its foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great light and I love that the plants are pretty sharp, too, as even quite a few FPs have some blurry areas of vegetation in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Снежната убавица Солунска Глава (2,540m).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2017 at 09:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Petrovnik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Impressive sight, but not an FP-level composition, in my opinion, and there's a large dust spot near the upper left corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not up to FP standards, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Small heath butterfly (Coenonympha pamphilus) 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 16:23:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Small heath butterfly (Coenonympha pamphilus) nectaring on common knapweed (Centaurea nigra). All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The butterfly+flower is good but the whole picture is quite noisy even at screen-filling size, never mind 100%. However, the bottom right has a large noiseless patch which looks like you've cloned something out. I don't mind that but it needs to be done better than this, with matching noise-texture and colour tones (it is a bit grey and lacking contrast). I think Christian Ferrer has helped Jee with some difficult photos to reduce noise in the background while retaining detail on the butterfly. Perhaps this can be rescued with different processing. -- Colin (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- KTC (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yes it is rather noisy! My error in submitting it. Charles (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The light blue fishing hut.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 12:01:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
Info A light blue fishing hut in a small cluster of similar buildings near the pier on the great sandy beach in Nørre Vorupør, Denmark. All by me, -- cart-Talk 12:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 12:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting combination of triangular and rectilinear forms. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Like Daniel, I find this a very interesting photo. But do you have a version with a bit of sky? I'd like to see what that looks like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ikan, no sky available. The huts were on a slope beneath the sand dunes and some other houses and boats, just to the right of this. The photo was taken top down from a small observation deck close by and had I made the photo just a little wider it would only included other houses, traffic signs, flags and people. Zooming in on this little area I managed to get a tranquil, pleasant shot in pastels in an otherwise rather busy place. --cart-Talk 09:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I'll live with the photo some more. I just wish there could be more room above those roofs, but I understand why there isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your attention. --cart-Talk 08:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iron Gate (Serbia-Romania) in 2016 - 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 09:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~The orange cones are disturbing. Can you remove them?~~ Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done --Pudelek (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did the other nominee from this set because it further demonstrates the Iron Gate's uncanny similarity to the Hudson Highlands near where I live. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The thing that disturbs me is the unsharp reeds in the near right corner. I'd suggest you crop them out, which is easy since there are so few of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped :) --Pudelek (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thank you. I like this picture and will reflect on whether I consider it an FP, as I haven't decided yet. I think the fact that you have the road with the stone cubes and the hewn rock in shadow as part of the foreground helps the composition considerably, as it isn't all in hazy light. That might make the difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above remarks. Looking down and across at the widening water and hillsides does it for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Jean-de-Buèges cf02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2017 at 07:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what attracted you to this (the similar forms of the houses), but there's too much going on compositionally for that aspect to distinguish itself so readily, and the fact that it's mostly in the shade doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 05:08:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Theaceae .
Info Delicate beauty of the Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' flower. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light is distracting, and the composition isn't helping it out, either. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Does this photo have less hard light and a better cutout? --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh contrast and posible flash light (because white light). Background distracting, underexposed, composition... --The Photographer 19:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I never use the flash.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DTU Danchip by moonlight.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2017 at 21:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
Info created by Fnielsen - uploaded by Fnielsen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - That building looks tough to photograph, but I don't think this photograph is clear enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely soft/blurred. Not sure what the artistic effect was intended, but it isn't working for me. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I like the nature against the modern building, and the colors. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Took me a while to figure out what was in the photo, because the tree, the building and the sky are all competing for the viewer's interest without any clear winner. At first I thought it was a collage of some kind. Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FN2A3653.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 20:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info created by Nixette - uploaded by Nixette - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny how these "morning-stretching-poses" always seems to give us humans a good look at the animal's privat parts. (former cat servant speaking here) Nevertheless, I like the nonchalance in the photo but it could use a little bit better contrast and there is color noise all over the fur that should be fixed. --cart-Talk 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per cart and, indeed, the colors in the image Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I love seeing a picture from Novaya Zemlya, an Arctic island I used to look at in my atlases when I was young and have always been kind of fascinated with. I like the fox, but the very blurry parts of the foreground are distracting. It's certainly a useful photo, though, and I will insert a thumbnail of it into the Wikivoyage article that covers Novaya Zemlya right away. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pose and the noise doesn't bother me given that it's not too severe -- Thennicke (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like the cryptic file name. PumpkinSky talk 11:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pied-winged swallow (Hirundo leucosoma).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2017 at 18:45:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Charles -- Charles (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support f/10, huge step from 6.3 --Mile (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mile. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Straight and to the point. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 08:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 01:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 20:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Thailand
Info created by PumpkinSky - uploaded by PumpkinSky - nominated by User:PumpkinSky -- PumpkinSky talk 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- While at QIC a frequent photographer at QIC and FPC suggested (on his talk page) I nominate this at FPC. It is now a QI. This is my first FPC nomination. PumpkinSky talk 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There's an exotic feel to the image with interesting subject matter and just the right amount of vegetation included in the frame. The light has a certain tropical quality that I enjoy... bright but vibrant. Nice work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not sharp enough, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 08:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mid-day straight-down light is not ideal here in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 09:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Длиннохвостая неясыть.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 20:21:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Levashkin - uploaded by Levashkin - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very harsh flash, the owl has a somewhat awkward posture, and fully half of the image is just blackness. Sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Animals do not pose, and for taking a picture of a night bird, there is no option but flashing. --Yann (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Yann. Sure, we could get some well lit photos of this species during daytime in a zoo, but there is definitely a plus to get a good photo of one in its natural habitat and a flash is the only way. The blackness is not a problem either, it's what you usually get at night in a nature reserve and if someone put a camera flash on me while I was busy hunting down my dinner, I would look startled and awkward too. --cart-Talk 09:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Peer Juliancolton and if this period is prolonged, logically, the bird is blinded for an extended moment and is vulnerable to danger as it cannot see well enough to respond to its environment. Many strigids and other nocturnal birds are highly dependent on sight, so a temporary lost of sight might be costly, or even life-threatening (due to depredation). Likewise, a night-bird blinded by the flashes, whether by birder’s torches or photographers flashes, are essentially “wasting” time for foraging and other natural behavior. This might have some ecological implication that we don’t know exist, that directly affects the birds negatively, perhaps in lowered prey capture success, leading to nest failure?, or got killed by arboreal predators.. etc. Having said that, there is still a small chance that the bird may react unexpectedly and hurt itself. IMHO “The subject is more important than the photo” more info --The Photographer 19:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is no evidence that one or two (close) flashes cause any damage to nocturnal animals' eyesight. This is a nice photo. I would crop at right and ideally leave more room at the top. Charles (talk)

- Oh God! In this photo having the status is depicted the killer of people! [1]. :) And she scored 10 positive votes. JukoFF (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 22:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:MalaDevi Temple Gyaraspur N-MP-283 (51).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 08:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Suyash Dwivedi - uploaded by Suyash Dwivedi - nominated by Suyash.dwivedi -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Incomplete description, the picture shows a specific part of a temple. Ezarateesteban 13:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezarate: That can be dealt with by renaming the file. It's not a reason to oppose the image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK when the image were renamed and description improved I´ll support it Ezarateesteban 17:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezarate:

Done renamed - Prakrut language verses in pillar at MalaDevi Temple.jpg thanks -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support problems fixed Ezarateesteban 11:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reflection of light doesn't look too great in my opinion. Apart from that, I don't find the image particularly striking in general. Symmetry would at least help that a little bit. — Julian H.^✈ 10:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melanitis leda-Kadavoor-2017-04-26-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 09:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Melanitis leda, Common evening brown, is a species of butterfly found flying at dusk. This is wet season form. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 09:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As the common name suggests this butterfly is active only in evening or in a cloudy environment. During the daytime they rest in the undergrowth and so difficult to get a clear view. This is the first time I get a good photo though chasing them since 2010. And surprisingly this is wet season form though the wet season is just starting. So probably this is from the first batch of this year. J e e 09:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot. Charles (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not all parts of the butterfly are optimally clear, but the legs, head and antennas are really clear, this is a very large photo for a butterfly photo and the butterfly is beautiful. I also take your points on the challenges of photographing this particular butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the wing is a bit more sharp here (but head not). The hind wings are not firmly closed, demanding more DOF. J e e 11:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 13:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turbo intercostalis 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 07:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another in this excellent series. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 12:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 13:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Свети Стефан Дечански (Манастир Јасеновац).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 05:36:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info St. Stefan Dečanski, Jasenovac monastery. My shot. --Mile (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 07:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 20:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 13:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:York Minster Nave 1, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured in a following set nomination

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I think this would be best as a set nomination along with File:York Minster Nave 2, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, which is in the opposite direction. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support + agree w/ Colin on a set nomination. Daphne Lantier 19:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for "setting" this up. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kasir, Daphne Lantier, Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, and Ikan Kekek: Before we carry on with this nom too far, would anyone object to it being withdrawn and a new set nomination in its place? -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: With both agree --Kasir (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 08:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I'd also agree with a set --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination @Kasir, Daphne Lantier, Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, and Ikan Kekek: @Moheen Reeyad, PierreSelim, Martin Falbisoner, and XRay: Seems to be consent, along with nominator Kasir, to change this to a set. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/York Minster Nave, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff -- Colin (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

York Minster Nave, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 11:05:01 (UTC)

The nave of York Minster in North Yorkshire, England.
The nave of York Minster looking towards the West Window in North Yorkshire, England.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the set too ! --PierreSelim (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jsamwrites (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support David come back! --The Photographer 11:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my !vote elsewhere. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very detailed photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Julian H.^✈ 10:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 20:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 13:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View of the Tuscan Hills from the San Gimignano.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 18:41:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I love the Tuscan countryside and have seen the beautiful views from the Rocca in San Gimignano, but this photo isn't really striking me because of the hazy light, the composition, which feels fairly random and not exceptional to me, and maybe the percentage of sky in the photo. Please try again: We could use more FPs of Tuscan countryside, and I also salute you for nominating something other than a church interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, I have many Features of Panoramas,Paintings, statues etc ... maybe it's better to see here[2], thank you --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you do, but most of your nominations are of church interiors. That's totally fine, of course! It's just nice to see something else now and then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mention a church interior of 3 months at least ... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to the nearly blown sky. Even without a GND, there are ways to fix this in software. Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, you mean Graduated neutral-density filter right? Seb26 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Oppose, no wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Price Zero|^talk 11:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salzburg Altstadt Panorama 20170409 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 09:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Austria
Info View from Mönchsberg to Hohensalzburg Castle and the historic center of Salzburg, federal state of Salzburg, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good panorama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes up for the compositional shortcomings with such fine detail. Annotation also a plus. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great in full size. J e e 11:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20120913 Bayezid II Kulliye Edirne Turkey.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 13:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Ggia -- Ggia (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like both lighting and mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree about the lighting and the mood; however it just feels unbalanced enough to me to keep it from FP. Deservedly a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,per above --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perspective --Pudelek (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - A little soft in places, but a pretty composition that reminds me of good 19th-century prints, with nice, soft lighting. However, I would like to hear from the opposers about what's unbalanced about the composition and what problem there is with the perspective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but it can reach FP quality through a little editing in my opinion. Specifically: Perspective correction, moving the crop up a little, a little bit of brightening and contrast, a tiny white balance adjustments towards blue. The latter part is a matter of taste, but the perspective should definitely be fixed. — Julian H.^✈ 12:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Much brighter image would be nice - Price Zero|^talk 10:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwanenstein, Lohme, Insel Rügen, 170422, ako (3).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 01:21:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by User:Code - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find it enjoyable to look around at the various stones, and also, as has been noted on this board, long exposures of tides are quite beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 05:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect! --Basotxerri (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like one of those "here's how it's supposed to look" photos you see in camera magazines. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination, Ikan Kekek. I think this is the best one of my "Schwanenstein"-series (there are still some I didn't upload yet). There's an interesting (and sad) story about this rock, I wrote a summary of it on the file description page. You really should read it if you didn't yet. --Code (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 11:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A mysterious composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's going on here? The nom should have easily gathered 10 supporting votes days ago... FPC, mysterious as always --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. There may be so many reasons. For me, some pictures are great in full size. But the thumbnail may not be attractive enough to tempt us to open in full size. Especially the dark ones. J e e 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I didn't go for this since, even if I like these long exposures, I like some substance in the water all the same. Like in this. I also followed Partick Smith some years ago and his water pics are usually more "tangible". Here the water looks too strange, like it is evaporating or if there is a methane gas leak nearby. But this is just my taste in these photos, so I won't drag this down by an 'oppose'. --cart-Talk 10:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Empress Maria Theresia monument in Vienna 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 21:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A potentially static image redeemed by the cool colors and subdued light. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd expect such a picture to be sharper. And at least it needs a geocode and a description in a second language. --Code (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a location --Pudelek (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a German description --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition and nice light. But at ~85 mm equivalent focal length, I agree with Code, the resolution could be a bit higher. — Julian H.^✈ 10:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /cart-Talk 15:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, LVM-Versicherung -- 2017 -- 6848.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2017 at 04:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great and almost surreal-looking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great photo of this building showing a new aspect of it, it looks almost totally transparent and I'm not just talking about the glas. --cart-Talk 08:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great picture for the cover of the annual report ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--cart-Talk 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting! J e e 13:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /cart-Talk 15:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spices of Saúde flea market, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 11:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- The Photographer 11:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks tasty. ;o) Yann (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 12:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm enjoying this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can taste the goodness here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if it's static, this photo has life in it. --cart-Talk 09:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seb26 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Playful. -- Pofka (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /cart-Talk 15:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ice cave on Olkhon island.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2017 at 15:11:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Ice cave on Olkhon island, lake Baikal, Russia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but 1) quite noisy and 2) could you pull highlights back a bit more? Red/green are clipping in the sky (to the left of the figure). -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with KennyOMG and I'm also oldfashioned enough to want icicles to be vertical. Any chance of fixing all this? --cart-Talk 16:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"IIII-ci-cle! IIII-ci-cle! / I want to like the icicles; I want them to look right"

Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment KennyOMG, W.carter, according to the EXIF, the highlights have been recovered as much as is possible. Although red/green values read 0xFF in the JPG, imo it isn't really that important unless there (a) it is reasonable to expect an 8-bit JPG to record that tonal range from ice cave to direct sunlight and (b) there's any interesting detail that has been lost. I think all we have here is some white featureless clouds in that portion, with the sun lighting them behind, and I'd rather they render brightly on my monitor than artificially reduced to paper white in order to have a more acceptable HEX value :-). The EXIF also show the exposure has been lifted considerably, showing that the photographer "exposed for the highlights" as much as they could. The darker cave has possibly been selectively brightened, further raising noise levels. I agree that some noise reduction on the cave (but not the central portion) would improve things. A vertical perspective adjustment of -40 together with a scale of 90 will fix the sloping verticals and retain as much image as possible, though there is some loss of the upper corners as a result. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned it because the yellow-orange blob draws my attention somewhat disturbingly. -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'd love a decrease in noise, but this is spectacular, so to my mind, it's already an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh what the heck... I'm in. :) It is spectacular. --cart-Talk 08:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great, though few spots would benefit from some localized noise reduction. — Julian H.^✈ 11:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 21:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now because of the issues mentioned above - it should not be difficult to correct these. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ogoy island in winter.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2017 at 15:08:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Ogoy island in winter, lake Baikal, Russia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Very nice picture from a place we don't see often. --Yann (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would it be possible to upload the fullsize 36MP image please. -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: @Daniel Case:

Done I uploaded the fullsize version of this photo. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Impressive. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Looks like a Roger Dean illustration ... I am very tempted to put the Yes logo in it near the top. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very striking. A bit of noise reduction on the right side would be welcomed by me, but it's inessential for my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Code (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. — Julian H.^✈ 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. Charles (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb!! --Alfredo Borba (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It rules! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KSK (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---- Jakubhal 12:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love lake Baïkal in winter - Benh (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 32 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salzburg Dom Kuppel 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2017 at 13:40:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Dome of Salzburg Cathedral, federal state of Salzburg, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent entry in this field. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest to turn it to left (ccw)--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Livioandronico2013: thanks for the hint --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry for delay,very good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Van-willem-vincent-gogh-die-kartoffelesser-03850.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2017 at 17:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

De Aardappeleters (The Potato Eaters) by Vincent van Gogh

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Genre scene
Info created by Vincent van Gogh - uploaded by W. - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support, if only because this seems to be the best one we have that's large enough to be FP-eligible, although to me it still leaves some things to be desired. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good - Price Zero|^talk 10:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Atudu (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kritzolina (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matenadaran, Ereván, Armenia, 2016-10-03, DD 22.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 20:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, commonly referred to as the Matenadaran, is a repository of ancient manuscripts, research institute and museum in Yerevan, Armenia. Founded in 1953 it holds one of the world's richest depositories of medieval manuscripts and books which span a broad range of subjects, including history, philosophy, medicine, literature, art history and cosmography in Armenian and many other languages. All by me, Poc o² 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I like the photo, but please discuss the amount of blue in your photo, compared to the grayness of photos by User:Halavar such as File:2014 Erywań, Matenadaran (18).jpg. I haven't been there, but on the face of it, the gray color looks more likely to me. However, I could easily be wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can see colour of the building also in other images. Ikan Kekek has right, there is too much amount of blue in nominated image. --Halavar (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Halavar and Ikan Kekek: Changing the WB is not a big deal but sorry, I'm not convinced, that I've to apply it. Different lighting conditions (time, weather, etc.) have a direct influence in the result. I've seen similar pictures with these tones, too. Within a range I think that some deviations among versions should be fine. Poc o² 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Matenadaran is as grey in real life as possible. The other linked picture is extremely warm that's why it's looks more brownish (unrealistically so). I think this image is, if you think nothing else of it, is a good example for images to shoot in the harsh midday sun, especially because grey objects don't care. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is too harsh. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The lighting is too harsh for what? I find it fine. I think this is the best photo of this motif on Commons (ergo, it should also be a VI). I think it was right to ask the question about the white balance, but it's very possible that the greater amount of blue in the sky accounts for all or most of the difference from Halavar's photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the contrasts and shadows are a bit too harsh for this motif. Just imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand your point of view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Kenny; nothing about this image (save the slight unsharpness at the top of the building, but that's a minor part of it) rubs me the wrong way. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows are too strong --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light, it gives a good amount of definition to the shapes and looks really good on the geometric details due to the almost perfect 45° shadow. — Julian H.^✈ 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'd like to "support" (!) then, Julian... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Falbisoner: Oh, yes, of course. Sorry. Fixed. — Julian H.^✈ 17:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. --Karelj (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too harsh lighting and strong shadows. -- Pofka (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 15:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 15:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medina old Town of Tunis.jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2017 at 13:16:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tries to take in too much, and unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Upscaled. — Julian H.^✈ 10:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
dear Daniel Case dear Julian H.^✈ thank you I will improve things :) --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 15:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pelister od Pelagonija.JPG, not featured

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by MartinDimitrievski - uploaded by MartinDimitrievski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very cool but quite oversaturated methinks. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get the feeling it is saturated by overprocessing, but that the scene might actually render like that. Although we won't really know for certain as the author is inactive and hasn't contributed since 2014. Seb26 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no problem with the colors, but it tries to take in either too much or too little (it feels like part of what could have been a really cool panoramic). Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong image Seb26 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition isn't convincing in my opinion, the contrast is too high and the resolution is not impressive for a landscape. — Julian H.^✈ 11:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really like the background with the snow-capped mountain and dramatic clouds, but the foreground is fairly boring to me and is almost 1/2 of the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose With bigger resolution it could have been huge. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reflection of a tree in koi pond.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2017 at 16:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really artistic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it lacks simplicity and composition to be more than just a chaotic photo of a pond. — Julian H.^✈ 06:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition and lighting do not initially strike me I'm afraid. I think visually it has the serenity one would expect from this scene, but something is missing and it falls too flat. I placed it among the other FPs in that category and I just don't see it belonging. Though I wonder what a photograph would look like of this scene during the late afternoon or similar. Seb26 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seb26, the thing that struck me enough to make me take this photo was how much the wavy reflection of the tree really looked like the way water is often depicted in stylized Japanese prints, not the serenity. Examples: 1 2 3 4. I also realize that these patterns may not be known to everyone so the connection may be lost then. If this was shot in the evening it would only be a dark photo of a koi pond. --cart-Talk 14:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Julian. --Karelj (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too chaotic and without composition to me as well. -- Pofka (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination At least the votes create a nice "autumn-y" color pattern; green fading slowly into red. :-) --cart-Talk 15:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Борополе, западната тераса на Караџица.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2017 at 13:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Petrovnik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Under other condition perhaps it could work but this image is too hazy and flat to me, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking detail and interesting composition. -- Colin (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --cart-Talk 20:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, especially Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Might have been a part of a larger panorama that could have had a chance, but by itself no. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No details --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too "hot", no details, blurry. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:17-05-06-Miniaturen RR79036.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2017 at 18:07:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 18:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 18:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a better more descriptive name, "Miniaturen" can refer to so many sorts of miniatures. --cart-Talk 20:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little noisy, but all the same a nice collection of single-pour bottles. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should put more light, and remove shadows in front. --Mile (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment the file page notes that this photo is licensed under {{GFDL-1.2}}. @Ralf, would you be able to clarify if this is also dual-licensed under a Creative Commons license? If it is only GFDL, I believe it may not eligible for FP status according to the guidelines for licensing of FP images. Typically the GFDL requires that the text of the license be distributed with all copies of the image which is cumbersome for photographs online. However this won't be a problem if the photo is also dual-licensed CC. Seb26 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Excused me, i'm forgotten that here not the quality is evaluated rather the license. --Ralf Roleček 07:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Addax of Bouhedma National Park.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 20:12:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - IMO, the composition is reasonably pretty but not interesting enough for FP and the addax is too small to make up for that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Issues with Contrast - Price Zero|^talk 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Ikan Kekek. Daphne Lantier 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Bauerschaft Börnste -- 2017 -- 6952.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2017 at 03:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is too bright for me, and overall this isn't quite wowing either. Daphne Lantier 03:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daphne. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It seems it'll a very fast decision. Thanks for your reviews. I think I stop this nomination. Please have a look to all the other nominations. --XRay ^talk 04:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherry blossom buds 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2017 at 12:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info While cherry blossoms are famed for their beauty, I think the first buds are also very interesting. Close-up some of them look like hungry little monsters. All by me, -- cart-Talk 12:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 12:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spring has sprung ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support simple yet impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - Irrespective of the results of this nomination, this photo should be nominated for QI and it also looks like a good VI candidate. In terms of this nomination, I've been undecided for a long time, but I think the composition is good enough to support a feature otherwise based on the interest of the motif. These buds look kind of like Brussels sprouts with some red leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan, it is always fascinating to see how things really look when you see them very close up. The photo was nominated at QIC at the same time it was nominated here and it is now a QI. You can always see if a pic has been nominated by scrolling down on the file's page and see under "File usage on Commons". If it is already nominated, 'Commons:Quality images candidates' will appear there even if it hasn't been promoted yet. --cart-Talk 08:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But if it has not yet been nominated for VI, it should be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a VI, I think the cropped version would be better since it shows the buds better at thumb, this is a more artistic take on the twig. Anyway, I don't do noms for VI anymore since I always seems to get the scope or some other part of the nom wrong. ;) It is a rather confusing section of Commons. --cart-Talk 09:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will make the VI nomination on your behalf. Point taken on the cropped version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and the seventh. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This remind me about my old camera and how difficult it was to get an FP with that. I think the quality is good enough and the composition is nice. J e e 04:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Fünf Höfe - Sphere, Munich, April 2017 -02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2017 at 13:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info Munich shopping mall Fünf Höfe: detail of sphere by Olafur Eliasson. Shapes, lines, forms, contrasts - and colors! Seriously, this image is not b&w... All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slight support Probably would be too chaotic in color, but in grayscale has a sort of Escheresque quality. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in color - I didn't even reduce saturation. Found that astonishing myself. The day was overcast and the light rather dull... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 09:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great in full size! J e e 13:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, nothing special for FP. --Karelj (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 05:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 03:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moesgård Strand i morgenlys.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2017 at 08:29:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Technically proficient and a QI for sure, but I don't see this one as standing out among our beach pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Daniel --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just QP. Plus I really dislike the "dead nature" photos. -- Pofka (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question, if you don't mind: What do you mean by "dead nature"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riigikogu hoone, Kaupo Kalda foto, 2016.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2017 at 19:37:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Kaupo Kalda - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, but noise...s anyway --Mile (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy where it should not be (right in the middle) and the colors never struck me as quite right (which the noise might explain). Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose essentially per Daniel, as I agree with him that it's too noisy at full size and that the colors look strange (posterized?). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks amazing in low resolution but horrible when zoomed in with all that noise, especially on the orange roof. Pity as I really wished to support it at first before zooming. -- Pofka (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 03:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Templeborough Roman Fort visualised 3D flythrough - Rotherham.webm, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2017 at 16:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info created by Rotherham Museums and Archives - uploaded by PatHadley - nominated by Richard Nevell. The Roman fort no longer survives, but this museum reconstruction shows how the site may have appeared. -- Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Broken thumbnail. This should be fixed before anything: phab:T164401. Yann (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1; will wait to !vote until this is fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The video is playing for me, and it's very valuable and something I'd usually vote to feature without a second thought. However, there is some unfortunate distortion in some frames that I would like to be edited out, unless it's somehow on my end, in which case, I may not be able to fairly judge this video. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can watch it (and I like what I've seen so far). But what I see at this nomination is just the play button floating over this ... no thumbscene. I think that's what Yann is talking about. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have that same view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a good visualisation. But the resolution is low, especially since texture filtering and anti-aliasing show noticeable problems and compression artifacts are really prominent. — Julian H.^✈ 09:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If memory serves, I had to use VLC to convert it from some obscure format. I'll see if I can dig out the original file and stick it on a server somewhere so someone with better AV file knowledge can do a better conversion? PatHadley (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PatHadley: If it's mts, avi, mov, wmv, mp4, ogv, ogg and mpeg the Video Convert tool can do the job pretty well. I'd be happy to try. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mezquita de Malek, Kerman, Irán, 2016-09-22, DD 20-22 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2017 at 21:27:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Dome of the Malek Mosque, the oldest and biggest mosque in Kerman, Iran. It's reminiscent of the rule of Malek Touran, the Seljuq king, and it was the sole mosque in the city until Mozaffari Grand Mosque was built. The mosque was built between 477 and 490 AH and is 101 metres (331 ft) long and 91 metres (299 ft) wide. Poc o² 21:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 21:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but your dates are wrong. 477 and 490 AH, perhaps? The Prophet Muhammad died in 632 CE, and it took a couple of decades after that for the Arabs to subdue Persia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, AH was righr. Thanks for the hint, Ikan Poc o² 05:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Julian H.^✈ 09:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:(Pano Spherique) Eglise Sainte-Marie de Quarante France.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2017 at 09:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by MaelBathfield - nominated by Pokéfan95 -- ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please view first with the 360 panorama viewer before voting!
Support -- ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a link to the 360 panorama viewer in the nom since all users don't know how to access it. --cart-Talk 10:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here. Anyway, FYI it can also be found on the file description page. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) (Well I know that but it is polite to put it on the nom page too make it easier for voters who may not be so familiar with the tech-things on the site.) --cart-Talk 12:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent --The Photographer 10:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lack of overall bright light adds something new to this and makes it mysteious. Nice work! --cart-Talk 12:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very good but I think less than 20MPix is somewhat small for a full spherical panorama. It would be great if the author could upload a larger version and give some information about the equipment and settings used. --Code (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see how this works in a starkly lit interior. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, too small panorama file.--Claus 08:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - It's not all as clear as I'd like (or as the very best Commons pictures of this type), but it makes me feel I'm inside that church to such an extent that I can perceive a musty odor from the centuries of deterioration to the stones. I think that for this, it deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Claus above. Yann (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think too, it´s too dark. --Milseburg (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Panorama is quite good \ Price Zero|^talk 11:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. --Karelj (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark & low resolution. Details are barely visible. -- Pofka (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mausoleo de Emir Ali, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 21-23 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2017 at 10:07:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Those Iranian saints really knew how to die in style, didn't they? Here's another spectacular Iranian mausoleum interior, once again by Diego. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Mmmm, shiny". I also love the green light (gives it a sort of sci-fi look) and the mild incongruity of the pedestrian wall clock. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Shiny!" --cart-Talk 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nom, Ikan Poc o² 17:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're very welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to spoil the party so I'll abstain from voting but does nobody see the problem with the bottom crop? It's much too tight, obviously. --Code (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think we're so overwhelmed by the beauty of this interior that the crop of the devotee doesn't much matter to us. One of the things I've noticed in looking at some really good paintings is that painters were not concerned about cropping the way many judges at FPC are. The totality of the picture deserves a feature, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you, the crop is improvable (my fault!) but the site is still wowing Poc o² 19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow. Very different from the European culture. All these green lamps looks so amazing, especially the middle one. -- Pofka (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mirafuentes - Iglesia 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 16:30:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by me - Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way it works with the gloomy sky. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dark clouds are good but the lighting on the building and gardens remains dull. I think it needs a tighter crop, particularly to get rid of the plastic bag/sheets on the right and a little less foreground/sky. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Thanks Colin, good advice. Done --Basotxerri (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Great mood but the quality is modest for an image of modest (14 MP) resolution with no mitigating factors (the bricks on the building are a bit smudged). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I really liked that dramatic scene, but the quality of the building definitely is not of FP level. The best example of poor quality is that middle building with a roof (just look how blurry is its left wall). Bricks also look quite blurry in other parts of the building. -- Pofka (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the mood, but I'm not blown away by the composition and agree with the critics on the degree of sharpness vs. size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all, your critics have been very constructive. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centre Block and Library of Parliament, Ottawa, West view 20170422 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 09:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info c/u/n by me, -- DXR (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the view and lighting of a very notable building, though I am not sure whether there is too much construction work going on for FP.
FYI, there are a couple FPs of this building (1, 2), however none from a comparable viewpoint. There is also a rather good QI (3) from the river, though in very different lighting conditions --DXR (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you were trying to do here, but it just doesn't come together. The building looks great from this angle, but the horizontal elements below it make me feel like there's more I should be seeing, and the whitewater is frankly a little distracting. In fact, it, in combination with the leafless woods, makes me shiver slightly, something I'm already doing too much of in this unseasonably cool May. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the up and down motion that the switching-back staircase provides for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks a bit flat to me. I think the telephoto compression does this image no favors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per King & Daniel. Daphne Lantier 04:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others. -- Pofka (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Okay, thanks for your opinions --DXR (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praha Astronomical Clock 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2017 at 13:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Others
Info Medieval astronomical clock at the Old Town Hall in Prague, Czech Republic. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would like the photographer was more to the right, just in front of the middle of the clock. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting harsh and too much in shadow. Particularly the lower dial is not legible. Compare File:Prague September 2016-15.jpg. -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: A detail image such as the one you mention can of course be more detailed and better legible than this full view. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of the point of the clock, to be able to see which entry it is pointing at. Here the pointer is positioned over text that is in shadow, and the lack of sharpness at that part of the photo adds to the problem. -- Colin (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While the lighting and shadow alone would not break the deal for me, what does is that this is a very busy image that's trying to do a lot, and I'm not immediately sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin & Daniel. Daphne Lantier 20:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows & lighting issues as per others. -- Pofka (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Поглед на Радика.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 09:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over processed, particularly too vivid and contrasty. Lack detail also, more like a painting. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colin said it. --cart-Talk 16:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, a shame since this view has FP potential. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuwara Eliya Town Hall and racecourseGround.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 02:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Lahiru Dulshan - uploaded by Lahiru Dulshan - nominated by Price Zero -- Price Zero|^talk 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Price Zero|^talk 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size, highlights, shadows, oversharpened, colors, theme. Sorry but no. -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very from FP-quality, I even doubt if this would a Q1photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 18:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baggerdepot Broek bij Joure 11.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 05:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Mud Depot Broek bij Joure. Highly dangerous Quicksand. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 07:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, quiet and smooth. Nice! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the lines. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent use of line. Even the clouds cooperated! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ca d Oro doppio ritratto di Tullio Lombardo Venezia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 05:21:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly off-center composition makes it a little edgy. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is too much empty background that needs to be cropped. Otherwise, the quality and composition are fine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see the note of Daniel Case which I appreciate very much --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Price Zero|^talk 11:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, nothing special for FP. --Karelj (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 05:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Lake MacKay Australia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 11:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by ESA / Copernicus Sentinel-2B, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors make this one somehow special to me. -- Yann (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a art? - Price Zero|^talk 14:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of. You can call this nature art. ;o) Yann (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works as an abstraction, but could be so many things without a close look; rust flaking off paint, lesions caused by some plant disease, etc. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think I perceive the artistry of this photo as much as some of you do, but another purpose for photography is information, and this certainly provides it in a colorful and interesting way. That's enough of a reason for a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. I was thinking it is a painting... The almighty nature! -- Pofka (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 04:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 06:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 08:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olfen, Stever an der Füchtelner Mühle -- 2016 -- 3939.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 05:48:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, blown parts but very nice light. You are one of the few who can get away with such bright light. :-) --cart-Talk 09:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always too much early for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely view but on three different screens I see very strange halos around the reflections of the trees in the water, especially on the right side. There are also some pieces of whatever swimming in the water and I see red halos around them. Does anybody else see these? --Code (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it... yes, you're right. The red halos especially should be taken care of. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check (and fix) it. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 09:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definetly wow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't like the blown areas; they are very obvious and distort the colours near to them -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Code: Thank you for your hint. CAs are removed with another parameter set. Before the set was wrong and some parts of the blue sky were removed too. BTW: And I improved the blown area too. --XRay ^talk 15:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but per Thennicke. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful image, however, color distortion and blown and Overexposed areas. I'm sorry --The Photographer 22:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. — Julian H.^✈ 10:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed --Mile (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak overexposed - Price Zero|^talk 11:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Center is as white as toothpaste. -- Pofka (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Propane tanks.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2017 at 15:22:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A photo I could have taken. ;) Could you please add a comment in the description about the average size of these tanks. Size is always hard with no reference points. --cart-Talk 16:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. Tanks are about 4 feet tall. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't wait to see more pictures like this, thanks Tomas --The Photographer 16:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for seeing the composition in the randomly-placed propane tanks. Really good accidentally-created abstract composition for you to work with. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and surprising. I couldn't figure out what they were at first. Caplets? If so, why so dirty looking? Tampon applicators? If so, why in that assortment of colors, without any pink or pastels? When you realize they're propane tanks, you're like "Wow ..." Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the first moment I thought they were colored crayons. --The Photographer 11:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 06:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @Tomascastelazo: , where was this image taken? (i.e. the city or country where the recycling centre is located) out of interest Seb26 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Seb26: , the photo was taken in the city of Silao, Guanajuato, at the entrance of an industrial park, called FIPASI. I drive by on my way to work and the scrap is always changing, when I saw this I knew it would be a great shot. I also knew that this was a drone shot, the pile is quite large and I took pictures straight down and at low altitude, then started to increase altitude to get the best effect possible. Thank you for your interest. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That place look very dangerous, maybe produced because the disorder. --The Photographer 17:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool, thank you! Seb26 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, it could be a private area? --The Photographer 18:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:São Bento Monastery, São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 15:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by -- The Photographer 15:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good amount of detail. The light is handled well, with the candles at one extreme and the stain-glass window at the other (I like how the brightest part of the window is pure white sunlight rather than paper white). -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very slightly distorted, but so much else is good that it is absolved. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way how the variation of lights lead our attention to the important parts. J e e 13:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 05:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose until angel on the top is recovered. Now it is brutally chopped from his stomach and I believe that it is an important part of the altar. -- Pofka (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This angel forms part of the roof of the inner dome which are a set of 4 angels one on each side, because of the proximity, it is not possible to add them all without creating a distortion of perspective or without cutting one of them. --The Photographer 12:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pity... I really like all the colors and everything, but chopping him just does not look good in altar photo, even through it is not possible to solve it. -- Pofka (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ајдар кади џамија, Битола (enterance domes of Hajdar Kadi Mosque, Bitola).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 19:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Three enterance domes of Hajdar Kadi Mosque, Bitola. My shot. --Mile (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The simplicity shines through. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel stole my line! I like it a lot better than some of the over-decorated ceilings we mostly see here. It also looks a bit like my Grandmother's best tableware. --cart-Talk 21:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Daniel stole my line! For once it happens the other way around ...

Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe! --cart-Talk 08:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 03:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The brilliance of the whites is very aesthetically pleasing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant colors. -- Pofka (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quai Aspirant Herber, Sète cf01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 12:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Price Zero|^talk 14:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might not have been sure about this scene, but the light is just right. Daniel Case (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wasn't sure about this composition, but my eyes move around it nicely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 03:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks somewhat unrealistic, WB seems to be off. Composition does not work for me either, and it lacks any wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but nothing really special to me. It looks like a random crop (left, right and top) from a potentially interesting panorama. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination that's likely true, thanks Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summerjam 20150705 Yakoto IMG 0077 by Emha.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2017 at 09:03:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Y'akoto performing at the 30th Summerjam Festival 2015, Cologne, all by my, -- Emha (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hand isn't perfectly sharp but overall great shot and well cropped -- Thennicke (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Thennicke, I wish the dress pattern and hand could be sharper but the face is, and that's what matters. I like this one for being atypical ... unlike so many other photos of performers at microphones, she's a little askance from it, and the colorful dress print neatly balances the neutrality of the microphone. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case, very well characterized! She had stunning looks for her audience like this --Emha (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 21:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 08:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. In comparison with other photos, I don't think her expression is very flattering, especially the half-closed eyes. — Julian H.^✈ 11:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I agree with Julian, would like her face to be a bit sharper, and prefer the other photo you linked upthread, though I wish that one wasn't quite as close-cropped. I'm liking File:Summerjam 20150705 Yakoto IMG 0062 by Emha.JPG, File:Summerjam 20150705 Yakoto IMG 0106 by Emha.JPG and File:Summerjam 20150705 Yakoto IMG 0068 by Emha.jpg the best, probably (the last one could possibly benefit from a small crop on the left side). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The expression and pose are not that convincing to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have Equal feeling - Price Zero|^talk 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JukoFF (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 05:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Baptism of Christ (Verrocchio & Leonardo).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 21:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info The Baptism of Christ is a painting finished around 1475 in the studio of the Italian Renaissance painter Andrea del Verrocchio and generally ascribed to him and his pupil Leonardo da Vinci. Some art historians discern the hands of other members of Verrocchio's workshop in the painting as well. The picture depicts the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as recorded in the Biblical Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The angel to the left is recorded as having been painted by the youthful Leonardo, a fact which has excited so much special comment and mythology, that the importance and value of the picture as a whole and within the œuvre of Verrocchio is often overlooked. Modern critics also attribute much of the landscape in the background and the figure of Christ to Leonardo da Vinci as well All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I like this photo, and on balance, it looks like it should be a VI in this scope, too. But what is the bright vertical line coming from the top, right of center? It's not in other photos of this painting such as File:Verrocchio, Leonardo da Vinci - Battesimo di Cristo - Google Art Project.jpg and File:Andrea del Verrocchio, Leonardo da Vinci - Baptism of Christ - Uffizi.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fold of the canvas, in the first photo you put it you can see I let you know a note, thank you --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie. I wonder if the other photographers smoothed it out in post-processing, which would be wrong. ~~I'll Support this as a good photograph of an important painting.~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support In regard to the importance of the painting and that my name is John the Baptist. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ J e e 11:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like painting, but its not whole, you choped some part, especially hands on top. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mile I do not understand what you are talking about. Make examples or make notes, so generic reviews are not very useful. The hands are there and are whole, I cut an INFINITE part of the arms because it was black and there was shade, I honestly do not understand what you think I have cut, kindly let me see thank you. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're right. I've struck my support vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan Kekek If you are not sure of something not to do it, you often change your mind, honestly if you do not vote (positively of course) my photos, I would feel lighter. Of course you can oppose when you want, but in favor it would be best to avoid so you do not take the risk of changing your mind because of your insecurity, thank you.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I owe an explanation for striking my support vote. The reason is obvious from the context. It feels a little strange to be asked not to support your photos if I feel like doing so. I'm not inclined to accede to such a request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to vote,but if you're not convinced, as is often the case, stumble ... it's a tip--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: I liked the picture, but when it was pointed out that it was missing a part of the top, I saw that. It has nothing to do with not being convinced: I simply hadn't noticed that the picture wasn't complete until that was pointed out. So what's your tip? To notice everything the first time or to ignore information I hadn't noticed if someone points it out? Either way, thanks but no thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact... before vote you must check, It's very simple --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not cut the top off of a painting. If you really want people to boycott your pictures because of your behavior, well... Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I prefer for my photos, after more than 100 featureds I think I understand something, then if it is "boycotted" as you say, I do not care. The important thing is that one knows what he does and does not change his mind at every wind change, thank you.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Livio why dont you just edit and cut frame out. Use Warp tool. --Mile (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 20:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the full version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info This is the full version if you prefer --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though Livio, if you really don't want my support, strike this line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to vote,but if you're not convinced, as is often the case, stumble ... it's a tip--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the frame's also fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dechantlacke - Lobau Wien-2430.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2017 at 19:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Hubertl - uploaded by Hubertl - nominated by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI for sure, but I don't see this as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. Quite usual picture. -- Pofka (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tamias sonomae at Samuel P. Taylor State Park.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 03:48:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great moment. NR has done some damage to the fur but 18 MP is on the high end for wildlife. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good for 400 mm. --Mile (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - I wish they were clearer at full size, but per KoH, and they are so cute! Very good at full page, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Code (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a very slighly too bright but a nice image. Good contrast. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute and well taken --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Thanks for share this lovely image and hight quality --The Photographer 14:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per this Far Side panel. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chip 'n' Dale ...my daughter said --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute composition. Charles (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness, nice bokeh. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support So cute! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 06:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 08:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Indosylvirana urbis-Kadavoor-2017-05-05-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 06:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created and uploaded by Jee - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This just might be one of Jee's best photos. What a perfect resting place for a little frog! How big is that frog? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks Ikan for this nom. As mentioned in fr:Indosylvirana urbis, it is a small frog, having only 30-40mm long. It was described in 2014 and found only in three districts of Kerala so far. It is known that frogs use plants and mushrooms as shelters in rain. I found this beauty in the morning after a heavy rain in night. And this East Indian Arrowroot flowers just after the first rains after summer. J e e 07:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great photo and the additional information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cute like a fairy tale, and very good quality. Yann (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition and quality. Eat your heart out Beatrix Potter! :) --cart-Talk 08:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Cayambe (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support My god --The Photographer 16:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It must be His birthday gift to me! ;) J e e 16:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see god in this picture. Actually a gift --The Photographer 18:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Detail is so good you can see the reflection of the flashbulb in the frog's eye. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. Charles (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support So good I will forgive you for linking to the Daily Mail. -- Colin (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, with the frog's head following the contours of the flower. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a fan of the (almost) front flash lighting, but I think it's a great catch and compo. - Benh (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, now I'm using a Portable Speedlight Softbox which avoids harsh shadows. The fearful subjects will fly away while seeing the big white circle approaching them is the only disadvantage. I agree a two flash system may improve the results more. J e e 02:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super cute! :D -- Pofka (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Men of Color Civil War Recruitment Broadside 1863.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2017 at 07:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category:Historical Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Printed by the US Steam-Power Book and Job Printing Establishment in Philadelphia, PA. - uploaded by Scewing - nominated by Scewing -- Scewing (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important on its own, & the added bonus of Frederick Douglass's name listed in the meeting prospectus (3rd down in 1st column) is really great too. Daphne Lantier 08:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I think the work may be worthy of FP status, I think this nomination may be a little bit rushed with regards to our file page for the work. I will do some more research on the work to find its true author (it was certainly not the printing place) and adapt the caption which has been copied verbatim from the auction page (not appropriate copyright wise). For others' reference, I found this work in OhioLink and a somewhat similar reproduction(?) on Library of Congress. Could the hunt continue still for a higher resolution, or is this version from the auction website sufficient? Seb26 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, I continued some of the above points on File talk:Men of Color Civil War Recruitment Broadside 1863.png. Seb26 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Wouldn't it be better for us to wait for resolution of these problems before featuring this broadside? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I initially thought so, and I did think it was poor that it was nominated with attribution given to the printer's press. But in the state that the file page is in now, after my changes with a proper author according to a reference and a more appropriate description, I believe it is good to go. As for the resolution issue: the OhioLink version I mentioned above... the resolution appears to be slightly lower, and the scan (to me) looks of lower quality, it is not quite as focused and sharp as our current version. (It sort of goes against what I am used to expecting...that libraries and commons have higher resolution works than random online websites, but alas the physical broadside itself is being sold privately so it follows.) What are others' thoughts? Seb26 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clear the broadside was composed by Frederick Douglass, that's great, and I certainly Support featuring this important historical document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Daphne. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hoping that the issues mentioned above has been/will be resolved. --cart-Talk 10:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Sunset Over the Sea.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2017 at 19:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Sunset over Coruripe Beach - Alagoas, Brazil. Created, uploaded and nominated by Alfredo Borba -- Alfredo Borba (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Alfredo Borba - uploaded by Alfredo Borba - nominated by Alfredo Borba -- Alfredo Borba (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alfredo Borba (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Was {{FPX}} - Overproceseed, satured, composition and tree distracting - The Photographer 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 21:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Over processed. I'm not sure what's actually sharp. -- KTC (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I thought the FPX would eliminate the need to cast this !vote, but I was wrong. Per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This look does have a constituency, but not much of one on this board. Aside from the points made above, I don't find the composition particularly compelling, partly because of the very motion-blurred frond at the upper right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, too dark, blue colour does not look natural for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can you upload a much brighter image - Price Zero|^talk 14:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When you zoom in it looks like a photo taken with an old mobile phone that only has a few megapixels. The sharpness is soooooo poor. -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winter-Regnitz-Bruderwald PC310003.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2017 at 10:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fantastic!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd love to see a wider scene, though. -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Walk out to winter ..." This is water, right, not ice? It looks like there's some faint mist over it in the rear. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. The river never freezes at this point because the water is too warm and flows. The ascending vapors promote the formation of rime.--Ermell (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a beautiful scene but some detail is lost on the whitest parts at the top right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suggest to darken the whitest parts a bit --Llez (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tried it but the result was not satisfying.--Ermell (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hausberg (Taunus)-Panorama 2016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2017 at 15:41:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Full and detailed panoramic view from the lookout tower on the Hausberg in the Taunus Mountains, Hesse. The view extends up to 100 km. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing details! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image's description links to a third party panorama viewer that includes some annotations of locations, which look to me like markings for mountains and various towns in the distance. Would it be practical to consider annotating our Commons version similarly? For reference here is the site I'm talking about [3] seb26 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons I haven´t found any possibility to annotate panoramics like this suitable. As I know, the ordinary annotations are only working in a preview. In any preview most details are too small to get hit or seen. I've also tried with permanent labels like here, but someone also think this could be disturbing. I´m still searching for the ideal way to present this image informations. --Milseburg (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A marvel to behold at full-res. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isaac Israels - Transport of colonial soldiers - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2017 at 19:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Isaac Israëls - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 02:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it seems like that's the best version out there, although the left corners seem a little out of focus. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lugworm casts on Gullmarsviken mudflats 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2017 at 20:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info No, not some mini mud volcanoes or some strange NASA photo, just some busy little animals on a beach in Lysekil. All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great study in shapes and patterns. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost an abstraction ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting! J e e 06:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mansión Masoudieh, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 58.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 15:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info View of of one of the 5 buildings in the Masoudieh Mansion, Tehran, Iran. The mansion dates from 1878 and is named after the son Persia's king Naser Al-Din Shah Masoud Mirza. The building houses the first Iran library and museum back to the beginning of the 20th century. All by me, Poc o² 15:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 15:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 03:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the fish. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Charles (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 15:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tinder fungus on pine.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 15:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Polyporaceae
Info An old multi-layered tinder fungus on a dead pine in Gullmarsskogen nature reserve, Sweden. Slight warning: Do not pixel-peep while eating. All by me, -- cart-Talk 15:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 15:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love mushrooms. I even had a group of them grow out of the carpet in my house a few years back. It turned out that there was a slow water leak in the bathroom wall/floor next to the room with the mushrooms... Daphne Lantier 03:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tender fungus. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Contours of fungus at the top left for me not sharp enough.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's a big fungus, about 25 cm high, so all of it didn't fit inside the DoF and given the outdoor circumstances, focus stacking was not an option here. --cart-Talk 16:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry per Famberhorst more DoF isn't good for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photography but not a FP for me--Ermell (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I've got some hints and tips about how to get a bit more DOF for my money and hopefully this fungus will be around later so I'll make another try for it later. Thanks for your comments. :) --cart-Talk 10:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pryor's Wood Bluebells 2017-04-26-5.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 18:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Bluebells in a local wood. Simple composition with focus on one tree trunk and the nearest flowers. The common bluebell fills the floor of old woodland in Britain in late April-May. The bell flowers, curled tightly back at the tips, droop down from one side of the stem shaped like a shepherd's crook. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the tree trunk is a very effective part of the composition; it's kind of just there, but doesn't make any kind of statement. I think including more of the trunk would be better, or otherwise not include it at all. Some flowers are also slightly blurred due to the wind; movement can be great if deliberate, but here it is merely a distraction and a faster speed would have been better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Causes me something unnatural. The transition from sharp to blurred to me abruptly.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm more or less where Famberhorst is on this picture. I like the tree trunk being part of the picture. My problem with it is that I would like a little more DoF. I guess I can find a couple of bluebells that are fairly sharp from top to bottom, but my personal preference would be for there to be a few more. Chalk that up to a difference in taste, as this picture does achieve what it sets out to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews. It's clear it isn't getting the love it needs to pass. -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc national de Jebel Orbata.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 11:00:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange colors, dull light? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info dear Alchemist-hp they are real colors and the sun was behind me and there was clouds as fog covering it as the clouds you are seeing in the sky those plant has this colours in south Tunisia especially in summer --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image doesn't look realistic. EXIF suggests levels heavily altered, so I don't agree this is "real". -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info dear Alchemist-hp and dear Colin this is the raw file you can verify that it is not heavy processed [[4]] --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I opened the raw file in ACR and it looks completely different to this. Lots of contrast and dark green vegetation. Perhaps your monitor is not set up correctly, or you haven't go the correct colour profiles. -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info dear Colin but the darkness is meant to be during the shot because if I did not do that the sky would be overexposed ... lot of my photos was rejected due to clouds overexposed so this time i divided the job so I can correct it after ... the only thing I did is i decreased highlights an whiteness and improved the shadow ... this is not overprocessing and my monitor is OK --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the EXIF, the following adjustments have been made in Lightroom: Parametric Darks +31; Parametric Lights -49; Parametric Highlights +54; Sharpen Edge Masking +100; Luminance Noise Reduction Detail +50; Color Noise Reduction Detail +50; Contrast +17; Highlights -100; Shadows +81; Whites -100; Blacks +89; Clarity +36. I have rarely seen so many and such extreme levels adjustments made to an image. The EXIF information isn't perfect evidence since it is often lost/removed during the editing process, particularly if several programs are used, but here is seems to be intact. You can't just whack those sliders left and right all over the place. From looking at the raw file, it was fine out-of-camera and only needed minimal adjustments. Certainly there was no issue with blown white clouds. I recommend you buy "The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop" by Jeff Schewe. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin's analyses. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Info dear all thank you for your valuable pieces of advices there would be better photos I promise that --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Treskavec 06.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 09:38:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info I like the documentary nature of this image, especially with the man bewildered in the view. Created by Gadjowsky - uploaded by Gadjowsky - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm, I'm not sure "documentary" works with a young man wearing an anorak and carrying a fancy shopping bag walking towards a monastery. This is a colourful building (see File:Манастир Трескавец.jpg, File:Treskavec Monastery.jpg. Also this angle doesn't really demonstrate the mountain top well (see File:Treskavec 04.jpg). -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the textures and the shapes in the photo. The nature of B&W is very well handled and it looks almost like one of the copper plate etchings of yesteryears. Of course it can be "documentary", that word does not have to imply doom and gloom. This is "documentary" in the sense that it has captured an ordinary thing, the man can be on a visit to the monastery for many reasons. He might be carrying that bag with a gift for his fiance waiting for him in he monastery where they will be getting engaged or something. In any case, I hope he is happy. --cart-Talk 11:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to agree with cart, but I'm not sure I like how this was exposed/developed/edited. To me this looks more like "black and grey", or technically speaking there's nothing going on in the right hand fifth of the histogram. But maybe this was done on purpose to make it look dark and gloomy? Then more fog/clouds would be nice. I don't totally dig the composition, it kind of makes me want to turn the camera a bit to the left. Not sure about this on yet … --El Grafo (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too unsharp in the background, especially on the mountain. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that the composition works here, there is too much in the image without a clear main subject. Also the quality issues mentioned above are a problem, visible even at normal viewing size. To me, the B/W reduces EV. --DXR (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As mentioned above, this photo isn't very sharp, and it's quite dark. There's a way for black and white photos to nevertheless feel colorful. This feels dreary to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pantala flavescens-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-002.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 03:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info Pantala flavescens, Globe skimmer, Globe wanderer or Wandering glider, is a wide-ranging dragonfly of the family Libellulidae. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 03:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This may be the most studied dragonfly and the biggest Wikipedia article about a dragonfly. There is no wonder as the number of hats it wears. This species of dragonfly is the world's longest known distance traveller. It is the highest-flying dragonfly, recorded at 6,200 m in the Himalayas. It is available in sea level too. Recent studies revealed it is a Panmictic species. J e e 03:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's good, but is it possible that definition has been lost by too much NR on the dragonfly? Charles (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No; I didn't. The background is smooth only because of a lower ISO (250). Fortunately, there is some foliage behind; otherwise the background become black. J e e 11:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clear FP to me --The Photographer 11:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job with the important wing detail. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thaddeus M. Fowler - Penn'a R.R. Car Shop's, Altoona, Pennsylvania, 1895.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 03:13:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Adam Cuerden - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Price Zero -- Price Zero (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a featured on English Wikipedia, so why not here -- Price Zero (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why not indeed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine by me. The world always looks so neat in these old prints, a bit like an optimistic Utopia. --cart-Talk 09:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-003.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 07:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Leptosia nina, Psyche, Wandering Snowflake, is a small butterfly of the family Pieridae found in Asia. The golden yellow color will disappear when get aged. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 07:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As the common name suggests, their flight is very slow and effortless; but have a habit to make continuously wander around without making any perch. So I tried to approach them in the early morning before they warm up and start flying. Hope it worked. :) J e e 07:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very dainty and ready for take off. --cart-Talk 08:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is good - Price Zero|^talk 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elegantly simple. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 23:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Charles (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice indeed, but it will be improved, IMO, by an increase of the contrast and a crop at bottom, and at top, (e.g. 16/9) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Christian for the suggestion. I hesitate to crop more of the grass. I'll try to play with more "clarity". J e e 13:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian, I uploaded a new version with more clarity and reduced color temperature. I uploaded a separate file in HD format as I've no confidence to change the composition here now. (Will revert if new version is not good.) J e e 17:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Jee, I prefear the cropped version, but the contrast is improved IMO in all cases. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (cropped), uploaded by the author

@Pofka: @Charlesjsharp: @Frank Schulenburg: @Daphne Lantier: @Agnes Monkelbaan: @Ikan Kekek: @Yann: @Daniel Case: @Golden Bosnian Lily: @Price Zero: @Cayambe: @Uoaei1: @Martin Falbisoner: @Johann Jaritz: @Moheen Reeyad: @W.carter:
Support I ping all the voters because I think the image is much better in this format IMO Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I still prefer Jee's warmer and more "airy" version. I get enough of this clinical blue/"perfect" light up here in Sweden. --cart-Talk 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: this is Jee version Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooopps! I read the names hastily and looked only at the pictures so I got the faulty impression that this was Christian's version. My bad.

Thanks for correcting me. Still like the warmer original best though with the original crop, but any one of those deserves a feature. --cart-Talk 18:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks cart for your suggestions. Though warm colors may more pleasing, I think it makes the white parts of the wings too a bit yellow which reduces the visibility of the real golden yellow colors around those black dots. I know it is painful to touch a nomination after this much supports. If one more person make a complaint I will revert the original to the initial warm tones. :) J e e 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the crop. Charles (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer the crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the original. Daphne Lantier 04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the original --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version is fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-003.jpg

File:Sara - Perro Pastor 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 16:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info all by me - Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everytime I see this picture, I have to smile. Perhaps it's not good enough for a FP but I want to give it a try. BTW, Sara is the name of village where I found this dog, it's not his name... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This works better than just a closeup of the dog (and what a dog face!) would have. It's a busy background, but its effect is literally softened, and what emerges is an image that tells how sleepy this town is. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. J e e 03:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support right shadow is distracting (I added note) --The Photographer 17:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: You're absolutely right, the shadow was a bit disturbing. I've tried to correct it with a series of radial filters but I can't remove it entirely. However, I think it's better now. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found your fix good, however, a bit bright and I thought on help you, I uploaded another versio, however, I rollbacked myself, if it's ok for you you can keep it on top. A hug --The Photographer 22:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: ¡Muchas gracias, compañero! That was very kind from you and looks much, much better! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siempre a tu orden muchacho!, lol --The Photographer 15:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not there, possibly due to camera limitations? Charles (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sharpness/definition on the dog. Charles (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An MFT isn't a full frame camera of course. Where do you see the problems, though? Sharpness? Noise? --Basotxerri (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the laziness of it. I also see that we are attracted to the same shapes/textures to shoot. ;) --cart-Talk 21:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LOL! ...only missing the eyes and the nose... --Basotxerri (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those "details" are what makes this an FPC and mine not. :) --cart-Talk 08:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I actually like it. --Mile (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good balance in the photo, dog sharp in the foreground and a background that's going down. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dunes at Nørre Vorupør Strand.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2017 at 11:49:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Denmark
Info From a distance, the dunes at Nørre Vorupør beach look like a painting in soft pastels. No wonder so many artists were attracted to this region in past centuries. -- cart-Talk 11:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 11:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. I think the vertical composition does not suit the subject; the foreground is too empty, even with the dark patch of grass, which does not have enough visual impact in my opinion. Also, overcast days are great for bringing out colors, which are also lacking in this image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. I regret that this isn't an impressive sight to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Horizontal, though ... we might able to do something with that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yeah, you may be right about the horizontal. Unfortunately, that was not possible due to houses and cars. Thanks for your comments though. :) --cart-Talk 07:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ardea cinerea - Heidelberg.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2017 at 09:58:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are several FPs already of this bird, most in the wild, which seem much better images. Nothing very sharp on this one. Charles (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe we have already pictures of a Grey Heron, but I never saw a Gray Heron in such a pose --Llez (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment several similar images in the category gallery. Charles (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment After your comment I searched and I found only one picture of bad quality. Please give me the link to the gallery with the several similar pictures you meant above --Llez (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment You said that 'I never saw a Gray Heron in such a pose'. I was just showing you it is not unusual. File:Ardea cinerea(Gollibolli)3.JPG is another one. Of course they are not great photos. 10:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This link doesn't work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link sorted. Charles (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The background sort of works at (literally) cross-purposes, but the pose is interesting enough to sustain FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the pose too. Daphne Lantier 04:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the pose, but I have to agree with Charles. In particular, User:Laitche has several wonderful pictures of gray herons in the wild. Llez, could you possibly sharpen the bird's head a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks Ikan --Llez (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Thanks for the improvement, Llez. I'll live with the photo a little longer before committing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 08:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canton Trade Fair 2 (tarotastic).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 23:01:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Taro Taylor, uploaded by Trialsanderrors, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There seems to be some liking here for abstract architecture. Not very big, but 6 Mpx should be enough even for a print. -- Yann (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad, but i think pano crop, as shown, would work better.--Mile (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Interesting building but the quality is very poor and the verticals not vertical. I think the b&w conversion hides just how bad the quality is. Our architecture FPs are better than this. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No excuse for this sharpness at 6 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting composition, but poor quality --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. It gets more and more blurry as you move deeper into that tunnel. -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin & others. I think cold B&W would be a better choice too. Daphne Lantier 02:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Salvador chiostro a Venezia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2017 at 22:56:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition and quality --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull lighting, no wow. Just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light as indicated by Colin and rather uninteresting. Also "starting" the photo with a column on each side is like fencing in the viewer. --cart-Talk 20:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting. -- Pofka (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swallow-tailed bee-eater (Merops hirundineus chrysolaimus).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2017 at 17:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charles -- Charles (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I like the bird and think this photo merits a feature, but I'd be happier if the bokeh were a little smoother. That doesn't seem to me to be a reason not to support, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but seems to me there's a strong halo around the bird (especially visible above-behind its back as a shadowy contour). -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had a look @KennyOMG: , but I can't see anything which might have caused by processing. Charles (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 04:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 08:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. A bit small but this is a small bird. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 02:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antiguo Puerto de Vitoria - Quejigos 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2017 at 16:30:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and yet another boring B&W tree... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 16:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent essay on texture and form. --Yann (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice balance. What's that sign in the tree supposed to mean? Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Daniel Case, the sign marks the border of a hunting area. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's sort of what I guessed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is what comes to mind when I think of fine art photography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me, cropping the tree that close on the left adds tension - was that your thinking, too? Regardless, it's an interesting choice. Good landscape composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I've just checked the RAW file, there is no side crop, it's like it came out of the camera; I only cropped some foreground on the bottom. This means I took it intuitionally this way or the surroundings forced me to do so because it was the best angle for the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Charleroi - boulevard Pierre Mayence 4 - 2017 - 04 - sgraffite.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 18:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Belgium
Info created by H₂O - uploaded by H₂O - nominated by Jmh2o -- H₂O^(talk) 18:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H₂O^(talk) 18:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice decorative feature, but on its own I don't see enough wow for FP, particularly with the electrical cable along the bottom. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin, and light seems flat. Daphne Lantier 03:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean per Colin. I have yet to decide on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I think Daphne just assumed the first person to vote on any FPC is always Ikan :-) -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that bad? I often wait a while before voting even if I've made a decision. But note that in the case of Mile's mosque ceiling, no-one at all voted for some time. It took me a while to make up my mind, and now a bunch of people have voted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected my vote. Daphne Lantier 07:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cable is a form of vandalims from some ignorant persons (désolé, ma langue est le français : le câble a été replacé après la restauration de l'œuvre par un technicien ignorant cette restauration et son coût. Certaines œuvres ruinées par l'action de l'homme ont obtenu le label. Modestement, je pense que cette photo répond aux critères.) --H₂O^(talk) 19:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The cable is a relatively minor part of the image, and it doesn't bother me that much. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cable and dirty concrete in the bottom. -- Pofka (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I have a lot of trouble deciding on this nomination. If the colors were more vivid or perhaps the light were a bit more intense, I might feel impelled to vote for a feature. More pinpoint focus at full size could help sway me, too. But I guess if someone put a gun to my head and demanded a decision, I'd go with "not outstanding enough to feature", whereupon my mild opposition. However, this is a good picture, and it should be nominated for VI. There's currently another photo of sgraffito in Charleroi at VIC, on the point of passing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Itaú Cultural, Avenida Paulista, Brazil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2017 at 19:19:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by -- The Photographer 19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...but please add some stairway-related category... --Basotxerri (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned the artwork on the wall forms a major part of the picture, and may be subject to copyright. Also the walls, doors, etc seem very curved. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the artwork on the wall, it's a permanent exposition and pages from Historia Naturalis Brasiliae (English: Brazilian Natural History), originally written in Latin, is the first scientific book about Brazil, written by Dutch naturalist Willem Piso and published in 1648 (PD-old). Also, I applied a barrel distortion fix, let me know if it's ok for you. Thanks --The Photographer 11:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Glad the artwork is ok. However, it is just too wonky and the left side appears to have some copy/paste cloning going on above the lift door. There's barely a straight line. I'd be ok with that if this was a fisheye lens but I'm not sure what we're seeing here. The red clothes and legs is also distracting. I'm suspecting this is a stiched-handheld photo, and you really need to get that pano head to do this to FP standard. -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a striched image and I haven't a fisheye lens. BTW Yes, I will buy that nodal ninja this year, however, I'm asking for somebody that only will travel in six months --The Photographer 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's a very good and appealing composition, IMO. Colin's concerns about copyright are well taken, but I don't know how or whether they should be addressed at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan I don't think it generally should be extensively discussed at FP, but I think that images with any doubt might be worth getting checked at DR before nominating here. Our "finest" work does have to genuinely be free. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But since it's already nominated here, I think the recourse is the same, anyway: A nomination at DR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this would be kept in a DR as per COM:DM. The stairs are the focus with the walls of images being incidental and unavoidable where the stairs don't block them. None of the pictures on the wall is big enough to extract a workable copy. They may also be PD-old-XX as The Photographer states below. Daphne Lantier 02:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Barrel distortion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks King of, please, take a look and tell me if it's ok for you --The Photographer 11:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have to Oppose barring a substantial improvement in the stitching. If you compare the old and new versions superimposed on each other, you see that only part of the image has been modified, suggesting that it was corrected manually, which is error-prone. There is now a kink in the curve of the ceiling, which doesn't seem to have been there in reality. Meanwhile, the curved pictures on the right are still not fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to define three things. 1) The striched image was handmade as well 2) The paintings on the wall are not aligned because severals artworks have a different size from the others. 3) With respect to reality, only a lens 50 mm FF should show a "human view like it's reality", a striched image is a human creation impossible to see through the eyes because the vision angle (wide) and because the distortion. Thanks for your comments, for me this kind of technical comments are very important to me and I respect them a lot. I promise to take them into account as much as possible --The Photographer 11:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it is hard, and I've spent many hours myself trying to fix up handheld stitched interiors, and had my failures too (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foreign and Commonwealth Office - Durbar Court.jpg). The standard for interiors is pretty high at FP. This is also challenging subject as it appears to be quite a small space. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your result is excellent and I think that with a corners distortion fix it could be improved. It is difficult for me to give an opinion especially because I consider you superior in knowledge in these subjects, however, btw the problem is barrel distortion, when pulling in a very wide amount of information from off axis, light gets distorted based on how extreme of an angle it is coming in at because the lens can't completely correct for how far off the lens axis the light is. Line bending is just a characteristic of lenses that wide- and many people use them to achieve that effect. It becomes a problem when one uses them to accommodate smaller APS-C sensors: if one goes wide enough to get the compositon one needs, it often results in unwanted distortion. In your case, my sugestion is reshape with Photoshop's liquify tool or Liquid Rescale GIMP plugin but this requires a great deal of skill and time. You can see a example on this original and the result, in this case Liquid Rescale GIMP plugin --The Photographer 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I make sure I turn on Lightroom's "Lens profile correction" before exporting files for stitching. That should mean any lens distortion is extremely low for all my lenses other than the fisheye. Remaining distortion is then the result of the projection chosen. But with handheld panos (or where a proper calibrated panoramic head isn't used) then the parallax errors add their own distortions as the algorithms assume the frames are all taken from a source point. Using SmartBlend is better at hiding these but sometimes the errors are so large that the stitching program makes the scene too distorted. I don't think liquify is the best solution, and the edit made to this file seems too crude and not really fixing the problem. I'll look at your snow pictures later. Another solution, for small rooms, is to abandon attempting a flat image but take a 360° panorama that one can move about it. Not sure your bank would be happy with that, though :-). -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Panorama ?! Is this part of sculpture ? --Mile (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, It's just the interior of Itaú Cultural and the art in the wall is PD-old --The Photographer 16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support. The art seems to be OK, but Colin's points about the weird decoration above the leftmost elevator door have to be taken into account and, perhaps, remedied. But ... what a cool looking space! Makes you think you're in an episode of The Prisoner or some other '60s narrative. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may look like the 60s, but the retro nod with the botanical illustrations on the walls is totally contemporary. --cart-Talk 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but people are too distracting for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LivioAndronico For security reasons they can not leave me alone or move from their place. They are security guards, this is the inside of a bank. --The Photographer 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok

Neutral --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Concerns addressed leaving only a stunning photograph seb26 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of stitching errors.--Ermell (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saúde flea market, São Paulo, Brazil 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2017 at 18:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- The Photographer 18:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Noise clearly visible; insufficient quality for FP. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moheen Reeyad I applie a denoise layer, please, tell me what do you think?. Thanks for your review --The Photographer 18:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still I have concern. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and arrangement of the fruits are not compelling, and there are reflections eg. at the watermelons that look like mold. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I basically agree with Uoaei1 on the composition: Wonderful labeling, but the composition is not as compelling to me as some of your other pictures of fruits and other foodstuffs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, not a really interesting composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016 Phnom Penh, Pałac Królewski, Preah Tineang Phhochani (14).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 10:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by me -- Halavar (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colourful and free of tourists. Shame the little bushes are cropped. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ Justynian I Cesarz Rzymski (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote.", this was this editor's 22nd edit. Welcome back later! --cart-Talk 21:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 20:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. The palace is beautiful, I like the light and composition (with Colin's caveat), and the sharpness is good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 07:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Cybularny ^Speak? 21:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Still I would love a slightly less tight crop. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coverlet shaped like a kimono IMA 82249.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 10:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Indianapolis Museum of Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have many FP of clothing, and this is worth the star. -- Yann (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree that there aren't many clothing FPs, but this is just a plain boring catalogue photo of a garment, it is flat without substance. And if it is to be regarded more as a work of art, then it is not sharp enough to show off the embroidery. Even many eBay photos of kimonos are better than this. --cart-Talk 11:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Cart. Also some colour moire. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matterhorn sunset 2016 (Unsplash).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 12:56:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural Switzerland
Info created by Sam Ferrara - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded as part of Commons:Village pump#Categorizers wanted for Unsplash experiment. --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice photo, awful description (I don't think Sam Ferrara looked like this in 2016) and categories, could you please fix those? --cart-Talk 13:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for fixing the "paper work" Fæ & Daniel. --cart-Talk 16:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support poty finalist material. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed! --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky looks like a long exposure, which matches the 120s image description, though the EXIF says 1/60s. Perhaps it is a blend from two photos taken at the same time (there's a related photo at this page which shows 1/30s crisp clouds). I'm not over-fond of the long-exposure effect on sky/water but this is a good example of the technique. -- Colin (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KennyOMG. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Florid and dreamlike ... if it weren't so small I might download it and use it as my lockscreen image. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support What the... That's very awesome! --★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truly remarkable colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 07:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! --Schnobby (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Love it! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, beautiful colours! --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support DoF 2,8 but is perfect....strange --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the better nominations I've seen here -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGopala Krishna A (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dreigende wolken rondom het stuwmeer. Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago del Careser 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2017 at 04:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The clouds above the lake at 2603 meters were so threatening that we decided to go back. All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the BW here is hiding noise and unsharpness that would be more evident in a color image. Also I think the BW conversion could have been done with more contrast; the darkest parts should be nearly black and the lightest parts should be nearly white. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think I agree with KoH. It should be more contrasty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. 14:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. New version. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: New version.

@Ikan Kekek: New version.

Thanks. Unfortunately, I'm seeing the noise on the mountaintops and trees more clearly now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think what KoH meant was more of an S curve like adjustment, not just compressing the values (contrast vs lightening/darkening). Even tho I don't necessarily agree with him about that I think in this case the dark foreground occupying 2/3 of the picture is not to its advantage. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Persépolis, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 76.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2017 at 21:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info View of the Gate of All Nations, belonging to the homonym palace and located in the ruins of the ancient city of Persepolis, Iran. The construction of the Gate of All Nations was ordered by the Achaemenid king Xerxes I (486-465 BC), the successor of the founder of Persepolis, Darius I the Great. Btw, it is the second attempt to get this fabulous subject to FP level, the first one is here (frontal view). All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is too close on the left side and at the top. I think the other version is superior. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Though I opposed the first nom as well. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Crop doesn't bother me so much, but there is purple fringing on top that could be removed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I liked the frontal view, and I'm sorry it barely missed being featured, but I don't like this angle. But I just checked, and there's no VI for Category:Gate of All Nations, so I think I'll nominate the frontal view at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Opposing because you don't like the angle (or neither this nor the last one) is fine to me but I would appreciate if you give me a second hint how would you have done it. For subjects like this one there is plenty of examples online. Daniel: the fringe is now gone Poc o² 17:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redshank lake geneva-4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 20:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info Redshank at the shore of Lake Geneva. This particular area had fallen dry over the last weeks and I was able to take a few nice pictures of migrating waders. While laying still on the ground behind my camera they came quite close. Created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As this is my own picture. -- C-M (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nicely posed, but noisy. Not just in the background, but on the birds itself. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. There's also some obtrusive unsharp foreground that I find distracting, and I have a preference for at least what the bird is immediately standing on looking realistic, though others wouldn't care. I think the bird is not that far from FP quality, as it is pretty sharp throughout, though noisy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a new version with noise reduction and a slight crop to achieve a cleaner foreground. Personally I tend not to bother with noise too much on high resolution images as you barely zoom in 1:1 where it becomes obvious & you loose a bit of sharpeness. C-M (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not ready to support this photo for FP, but I've struck my opposing vote. I've seen clearer birds at FPC, but this is a large file for a bird photo, it's a nice bird, and I like that we can see its body from its head to its feet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough compared to e.g. File:Common Redshank Tringa totanus.jpg. I'm surprised at the noise levels as ISO 560 shouldn't be that high for a D500, but I see from the EXIF that the exposure has been lifted 1.4ev and a +25 dehaze is a lot and that does tend to add lots of noise. Maybe more luck in brighter light conditions. Btw, CM, most folk support their own picture nominations. You're posting here, so we assume you think it FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had an other go with the Lightroom Sliders which reduced the noise an other time (less EV+, bit of Highlight, no Dehaze, less sharpening) Compared to the existing picture: The light situation is definitively not compareable, my picture has been taken about half an hour before sunset which gives more muted contrasts and softer shaddows, something I prefer over strong daylight. I could probably have gotten more sharpness by going to F8 with a higher ISO, but that would have increased the noise even further. In terms of texture I prefer my feathers, the existing picture has a strange effect where only the tips are sharp and everything else looks rather mushy - any Ideas how that happened? To much denoise with masking on strong edges? Anyway: I highliy appreciate your comments as they give an other perspective, I only started taking bird photography more seriously very recently and still learn and try to improve my technique. C-M (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm no bird expert. Try User:Charlesjsharp for advice on technique as he's nominated quite a few. I agree the light may be photogenically better at this hour (I do like the colours and composition and action, per Yann, which often is lacking in our "bird species identification" photos), but it is also a problem wrt achieving a low noise / fast shutter. I find high noise can really reduce the sharpness when one is looking closely (though absolutely fine for small "for the web" sized images). But so can using a lens wide-open or having too slow a shutter. It is not easy to balance these. I presume your lens has OIS, though from my experience (and from reviews) that seems to increase one's chances of a sharp-enough image rather than being reliable, so taking many shots could improve your chances of a sharp image. If the bird is fast moving, 1/500s might not be fast enough. The two pictures aren't completely comparable, though I downsized yours a little to make a farer comparison, and the other one still looked sharper. Sharpness isn't everything, if you have a great image, and in the past many of our bird photos were heavily downsized, which hides these flaws. Btw, best to ping me if you reply as I don't always re-look at nominations I've voted on. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Others know much more about processing than I do, though it is clear than NR has reduced definition on this image. I'm surprised you have tried 1/500 with a 600mm lens without a tripod. That and F5.6 are going to make life difficult. When I'm lying on the ground, I find it difficult to keep the camera super still, even with it resting on something and always use IS lenses. Evening light can look great, but it will cost you several stops. For mammals, evening light works well, but for a bird portrait, you are not going to get such a good result. The ISO setting is not the problem here - up to ISO800 should be fine. Charles (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support I like very much the colors and the composition. I hope you can get it right next time. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best "vote" ^^ I've seen in a long time, Yann. :) --cart-Talk 17:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Good photo of a bird, but the noise is a concern for me. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 22:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wind power plants in Xinjiang, China.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 02:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info - uploaded by Fred J - nominated by Price Zero -- Price Zero|^talk 02:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Price Zero|^talk 02:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful composition, i love it, however, a bit tight on bottom and right. --The Photographer 11:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't stand out from other pictures of wind turbines at sunset IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel; Also, this photograph has a very low resolution (1,024 × 681 pixels), and despite it being from 2005, the significant clipping around the sun, among other factors, don't make up for it. Sorry. WClarke 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is smaller than the minimum size of 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at the original Flickr page for the file and the original resolution was 3008x2000. However back in 2007 it seems the 1024px version was uploaded to Commons. I have added this higher resolution now and removed the FP close so that those that voted can reconsider based on other factors. I personally feel the composition is quite good and that the subject is something important to feature, but I get the feeling this shot could be done...better... seb26 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that it's big enough, I oppose it based on the weird-shaped sun-blowout area that feels to me like a picture of a nova, the strange greenish blotch some way to its left and higher, and because it has to compete in Category:Sunsets, one of the strongest on Commons, though admittedly, also in Category:Wind farms, which is not nearly so strong. However, I would suggest at least two pictures of wind turbines at sunset with neater compositions than this one: File:Bạc Liêu windpower farm.jpg, although its FP nomination didn't succeed and I voted against, and File:Zwei WKA auf der Neutscher Höhe.JPG, which I don't think would pass here, either, but is pretty simple in basic conception. So, essentially per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Daniel. -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overexposed blob which is the sun has a weird shape. Nothing wrong with having the sun blow out, but it should do so gracefully with a smooth transition and minimal false color. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dried Lake Khanskoye, September 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2017 at 13:34:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by AlixSaz - uploaded by AlixSaz - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely yes! -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky looks over-processed. The horizon on the left is a little distracting as it slopes down and is a bit smudged, perhaps natural or perhaps it's been fixed-up there? -- Colin (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin's right, I guess, but I'm still wowed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky could look a little more natural, I agree, and that horizon line at left does look weird, but overall this picture manages to define "barren" for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 02:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Colin, beautiful scene notwithstanding. Also there's no reason to use f/5.6 here, the lower corners clearly show insufficient DOF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if this is an interesting scene, the over-processed quality of the photo puts me off. The white balance also seems a little off to me. --cart-Talk 09:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Нижнее Шавлинское озеро. Вид с восточного берега.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2017 at 13:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by N 3 14 15 92 65 - uploaded by N 3 14 15 92 65 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support iLike. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is a great example of reflected mountain scene. Lots in shadow, only a tiny bit forming a nice reflection, and that nearby stone distracts. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I respect Colin's points but I still think this is good enough to be a nice FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin. There, I got the right guy this time... Daphne Lantier 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I admit the rock in front is a distraction, but I see this as an acceptable tradeoff since this is the best way to frame the distant mountain. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly a busy composition, but here it's interesting and makes you want to stare at it longer rather than merely being a distraction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More grass than mountains--g. balaxaZe★ 08:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Had the photographer stepped forward a bit and excluded the rocky grass/shoreline it would have been great, now it is too much. --cart-Talk 09:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spherical garden lamp.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 02:28:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by cvmontuy - uploaded by cvmontuy - nominated by cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - As I mentioned at COM:Photography critiques, I'd love a crop of the unsharp foreground areas. However, I think this picture is good and interesting enough to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought I recognized this from my own visit to UNAM after Wikimania 2015 ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Comment You are right it is about 100 meters from there --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but neither subject nor composition are featurable to me - no wow. --DXR (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DXR --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /cart-Talk 08:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Casino de Constanza, Constanza, Rumania, 2016-05-27, DD 01-03 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 06:37:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Blue hour view of the Constanța Casino, a casino located directly in front of the Black Sea in Constanța, Romania. The building, listed as historic monument by Romania's Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs, is considered a symbol of the city and it was built in Art Nouveau style according to the plans of Daniel Renard and inaugurated in August 1910. All by me, Poc o² 06:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the issues noted ... they're tiny abberations in an otherwise excellent blue-hour pic. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: Oops, I oversaw Uwe's notes, they are addressed now. Poc o² 18:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Killed by HDR. (for colors) --Mile (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky seems a bit unrealistic blue but is still o.k. for me--Ermell (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose the sky and its shade of blue, sorry... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ggia (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too much blue and too much yellow, the whole color scheme looks unnatural (I know that it may be what the camera produced but it still looks a bit too much). --cart-Talk 20:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diego, several folks have objected to the strong yellow light on the facade of the casino building. My assumption is that there is one or more strong yellow light source(s) we don't see, but I think it would be good for you to address this directly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cooled the WB, what do you think? @Ikan Kekek, W.carter, PetarM, and Martin Falbisoner: @Ermell, Daniel Case, Cccefalon, and Ggia: Poc o² 18:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Poco a poco: The sky is too bright in relation to the lights of the ships in behind. That´s why the whole appears unrealistic.--Ermell (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Diego, unlike Ermell, I don't have expertise in how much light ships use at what time of night. The photo looks good to me, but since there's been so much controversy about the yellow light, I'd feel more confident in voting to support if you would explain where the yellow light was coming from. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request this image is too surreal for me. Can you please try and test an completely different HDR setup? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone please kindly explain the difference between the current image and this one? Especially Cart who supported the linked one but opposes this one? -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a new version after adjusting curves and WB but this is rather a kind of tapping in the darkness. Alchemist-hp there is no issue with the HDR processin as the brighest frame looks simnilar to the final result. Ikan the only lighting I can think of was from the building in front of it, an aquarium, I was standing on its roof (please, don't tell anybody, I don't think that I was supposed to do that...). KennyOMG, that's a good question :) Poc o² 19:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good enough for me. And yeah, Kenny, very good question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Peter and Paul Fortress 03 (partial).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2017 at 06:44:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 07:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There's already an FP of the entire fortress: File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Peter and Paul Fortress 02.jpg. This is a clearer photo of the part of the fortress in question, in better light. I ultimately agree that it merits a feature, for those reasons and more so because of the level of detail, remembering, too, that there are things that can only be seen from above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 8 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The layers of different lighting caused by the clouds are very interesting - reminds you of hills in Scotland. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good addition to this one. --A.Savin 10:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the nomination! --Godot13 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chapeau! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sarracenia leucophylla at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81396)b.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2017 at 10:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Ericales
Info created and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 10:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fell in love with this at QIC. This photo is all about lines, the dark grass complements and echoes the shape of the flowers, the light is such that you can feel the calm, moist air surrounding the plants. -- cart-Talk 10:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I get the sense of peace, too, and I think the background is faded just enough - I enjoy looking around at the various grasses and flowers, but they are not fighting the subject for dominance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 00:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seductive. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, but a bit of noise.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:1 aerial yangshuo panorama 2017.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 16:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lovely scene, yes, but too noisy in the background (As I've said before, when drones can start carrying DSLRs or something equivalent, then we will see some really great pictures from them here). Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Doesn't seem all that noisy to me, and I find it impressive and well-composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: It's most noticeable in the background ... sort of looks like it was shot through applesauce or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see what you're talking about, but since it's the background, it doesn't bother me that much. Maybe I'm wrong; we'll see how other people vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Indeed a beautiful composition, but for me too noisy for a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not saying that this image necessarily is a FP, but I find it stunning that people would seriously oppose a 30+ MP aerial photo because of noise issues. Imo this really reflects an excessive focus on technicals and judging images at 1:1 regardless of pixel count, when most users of this picture would only ever notice this turning this picture into a large poster. --DXR (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with DXR, this is not more noisy than some of the the night FPs we have here. The curve of the river offsets the strange pointy mountains in a nice way. It can seems strange that we accept noise in night photos because of technical limitations, but not in aerial photos due to other technical limitations. Btw (sidebar), the development of drone photography seems not to lie in making bigger drones to carry larger cameras, but rather going the other way. New drones are smaller but with better software. They can be programmed to fly in grid patterns, taking lots of images that are stitched together into panoramas. There is also the technique where a host of small drones fly in formation and are synced to perform tasks such as compiling photos into a large image, (or just looking pretty). --cart-Talk 09:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @W.carter: World’s first 100-million-pixel drone launched by DJI and Hasselblad scnr ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: WoW! Awesome! It might be just a liiiiittle bit outside my price range. :-P Think I'll stick with the smaller ones with the upgraded software for now. :) --cart-Talk 16:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The compo is good but the quality is not. Too noisy and not sharp enough for FP.--Ermell (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed that drone photography leaves something to be desired, but it is well-composed, as pointed out by Ikan, and is a very interesting scene. WClarke 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% agree with DXR. Yann (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing drone shot ! Makes me want one of those. - Benh (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful, sharpness and noise are OK for the resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support We need more FPs similar to this one! --★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK, so I've thought about this for a while now. The technical quality is fine for me, good enough for a pretty large print. I like the composition, totally agree with Cart here. But somehow I'm still not really wow-ed by the over-all picture. It looks kind of bland to me, and I've got a suspicion that the same composition could work much better had it been taken at a different time of day, a different day, or a different season. It is good, it is useful, but it doesn't blow my socks off. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Long Spit Sea of Azov2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2017 at 04:37:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:AlixSaz - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love how the shapes of the clouds are rhymed on land and sea, and the surf is rhymed by the dramatic clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support per Ikan. The ocean looks sort of weird near the edges and at the horizon, but given that that sort of location can be tricky (or even dangerous) to shoot from when the tide's coming in, and what the photographer got, I'll give it to them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful sky --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderfully dramatic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I agree, it is a dramatic scene. But nevertheless especially the left side is too noisy, overprocessed, and oversharpened. Fixable? -Llez (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per Llez, this is overprocessed and oversharpened to the point where the clouds are crunchy. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clouds look unnatural, and the horizon is... There is something weird going on there. There's a noticeable dip between the yellow shirted guy and the shore on the left side, it's leaning to the left on both sides, yes the land seems to be straight, etc. Also per Llez, and at the very minimum the highlights in the water on the left should be fixed before this passes. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:AlixSaz, if you'd like to address any of the objections, please do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Per above. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Llez. However I could imagine that the image is fixable, so please try! ...and the scenary is great! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Great, but cannot support due to concerns by Liez and the opposers. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alix posted to my user talk page that he plans to fix the problems noted in this thread within 3-4 days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I thank all who have carefully studied my file. Possible I made changes,hope it will improve the image which I have made. --AlixSaz 12:12, 14 May 2017(UTC)
Support Better now --Llez (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Llez, you need to strike your neutral vote above. Pinging Colin, KennyOMG, Moheen Reeyad, Basotxerri, Pokéfan95, Daniel Case, Michielverbeek, Martin Falbisoner and W.carter to make sure you have a chance to see the new version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now it's way too soft. :( My oppose stands. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support KSK (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) cub.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2017 at 09:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Cheetah cubs are hidden in long grass when mother goes hunting. Created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - And yet you found the cub. Excellent, and a photo in which the tall grass is essential for the documentation. Thanks for providing that valuable info. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo and good camo. --cart-Talk 12:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 17:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Must not have been easy to get it in focus with all the grass in front. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of those rare photos where showing the animal blending into its environment actually makes it more striking. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 11:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gopala Krishna A (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PumpkinSky talk 17:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Morrão, no Parque Nacional da Chapada Diamantina - Bahia crop 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2017 at 07:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Original version created - uploaded by Jeilsonandrade - edited by Julian Herzog - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Striking and good. Good find. It looks rather like the shape of an old caldera, but w:Chapada Diamantina says it's an erosion landform. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very striking. For some reason I think it looks like two mountains embracing or dancing; just my wild imagination. --cart-Talk 11:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Great scene though isn't the sharpest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. A bit too much "centered" for me. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pryor's Wood Bluebells 2017-04-26-4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2017 at 08:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The common bluebell fills the floor of old woodland in Britain in late April-May. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image demonstrates the natural wonder that is a carpet of bluebells in British woods. -- Colin (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's actually not easy to get this clear a shot of bluebells. Very nice. Charlesjsharp 09:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much more interesting than the previous nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! You get the curved trunk as a focal point and the rest of the wood goes off into a vanishing point like in a Renaissance painting. --cart-Talk 10:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly as per Yann -- Thennicke (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Damn! That's surely one of the most amazing forest scenes I've ever seen... --A.Savin 10:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone. Not really for pixel-peeping, best at full screen on a computer and damn colorful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one. I already liked it a lot when I first saw it on Flickr. --Code (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support by all means --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Want to be there! --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a lovely place. --XRay ^talk 16:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right on the Monet ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite impressive! --PierreSelim (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the most striking photos I`ve ever seen in my entire life. Congrats! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, very good but Question what is the f number? I don't see it in the EXIFs? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian it was taken with a "Samyang 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC" which has no electronic coupling to the camera and doesn't even have an automatic aperture. I can't remember what I set it to. Perhaps f/8 (which would be similar DoF to f/11 on your full frame). -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - oh ok, surprising, this seems to be a much smaller DoF, I do not say that it is wrong, it is even very successful Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Christian, I found some shots I took wide open and the shutter speed is 3 stops higher, so this must be f/5.6. The lens at 135mm on my camera is equivalent to 200mm on a full frame, so the DoF will be small. I think the telephoto has helped to compress the perspective. -- Colin (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Bauerschaft Börnste -- 2017 -- 6919.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2017 at 18:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. It's a great subject but I find the light a little strange (dark?). --cart-Talk 20:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me, this is terrific! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not often we get this view, interestingly enough. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me this is not extraordinary. I have done similar shots such as File:Fagus sylvatica Herbstlaub 01.JPG and never considered the subject as FP worthy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I (mis?)understand that you consider this entire category of photographs unfeaturable, regardless of composition, but my observation would be that whereas the photo you linked has a random composition to my eyes (I hope it's not insulting to say that, as it does have some very good qualities, including the way shades of light are captured on the leaves), in this photo, the trees all appear to meet in the middle, where there is a narrow space of sky. So I would submit that the composition of this photo is vastly superior, which might make your comparison nearly irrelevant except to anyone who agrees with you(? sorry if I've misunderstood) that a view looking up to the sky amidst the trees is per se unfeaturable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just a little hint concerning perspective geometry: If you look along the direction of parallel objects, they can't do anything but appear to meet in infinity - in the so called 'vanishing point'. Nonetheless: it needs someone to see and picture it. --PtrQs (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they have to be there. I do know a bit about vanishing points, as my father was a painter and a professor and lecturer of some note. Perspective was never my strong point, though. I understand the arabesque, and I understand foreshortening, but I couldn't make the kinds of geometric perspective diagrams my father did with his hands in front of a painting we were looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I found interesting the form of the trees on top look like they are talking --The Photographer 16:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Uoaei1 --Pudelek (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Uaei1 --Ermell (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1. -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PtrQs (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Bauerschaft Börnste -- 2017 -- 6924-30.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2017 at 18:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry it is beautiful, but the quality leaves something to be desired. There is traces of red CA in the branches top left, most of the photo seems a little overprocessed especially the right side and all the leaning things on the right side should have had some perspective correction, that is easy to see when there are built structures there plus a guy on a bench. --cart-Talk 20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the image for the issues especially the CAs. --XRay ^talk 04:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Thanks for fixing the issues. :) The "weak" is because the light in this and the other photo still bugs me a little, not exactly sure why. --cart-Talk 09:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a gorgeous photo, and I'm confident the problems noted by cart will be lessened during the review period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Also perspective correction, and for me there are bad light conditions. Otherwise a good photo.~~ Better now. -- -donald- (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter, Daniel Case, and -donald-: Now I've made a perspective correction and CAs should be removed. Thanks for your hints. --XRay ^talk 04:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange and unnatural light for me as well. -- Pofka (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the light really that strange? You all are photographers who look closely at light all the time, so I have to respect your reactions, but I find them surprising because I feel like I've seen and experienced light like this on some cloudy days. I think there must be some unusual issue in the white balance that's putting you all off and not fazing me at all. But I feel like it can't be that far off, or it would bother me, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting and composition don't work for me. The cloud covering most of the left side and extending 2/3 of the way to the right interacts poorly with the tree branches at the left in my opinion. It would also be better if the scene were brighter overall (in terms of the quality of light; this is not something that can be fixed by brightening the image in post). To answer Ikan's point, I think the problem is that shadows were pushed too much; I think the scene looked darker in reality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Ferdinando (Naples) - Ceiling.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2017 at 20:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but unfortunately the attribution to the artist is wrong --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vault has a fresco with the story of Saint Francis Xavier and other Jesuits by Paolo De Matteis. You can check here [5] thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes Wolfgang Moroder,you're right. Sorry and thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvellous subject and a good image. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zhu-Ye-Qing-Tea-03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2017 at 15:14:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info Macro photography with focus stacking technique of Zhu Ye Qing Tea (竹叶青). It is a tea, that grows at the slopes of Mount Emei in the Chinese province Sechuan.

all by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and additionally the White Tea page is screaming for a similar quality pic. ;) -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and high EV. I'll have mine with some honey and a bit of lemon, please. --cart-Talk 19:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per W.carter. ;oD Yann (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Very unusual-looking tea leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need WB (it look a bit yellow) and a bit Underexposed --The Photographer 11:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Praha Panorama from Petřín 20170430.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2017 at 09:27:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info View from Petřín to Hradčany and the Old Town of Prague, Czech Republic. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support So lovely. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olkhon island in winter.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2017 at 15:27:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Olkhon island in winter, lake Baikal, Russia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, kind of grainy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the graininess, I'm not wowed by this photo, it's a nice view but no more than that. Sorry. --cart-Talk 20:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Very good picture, indeed, but not quite an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great landscape seb26 (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Quality is really poor when you zoom in any part of the image. -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baikal ice on sunset 4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2017 at 15:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Baikal ice on sunset. The Small Sea Strait, lake Baikal, Russia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you stand on that crack in the ice??? --Basotxerri (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Basotxerri: Yes, it's not as scary as it looks. Ice thickness was slightly less than 1 meter. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was not sure if I should vote for an image that could endanger your life, however, because your reply I will vote support. --The Photographer 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for now since I'm not too happy about all the leaning reflections (plus a skater/fisherman) at the borders. It would look even better with perspective correction. Btw, The Photographer, didn't you see the tyre tracks of a car in the other pic from this location? :) --cart-Talk 17:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it maybe it's a joke --The Photographer 17:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 1-m-tick-ice can support pretty heavy weight. There was a FPC with a frozen lake in Switzerland with people skating on 20-cm ice. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, I've added a note on the photo (I'll remove it later). Up here in the north we actually do a lot of car racing on the frozen lakes. Here is a drone film of some cars having a bit of fun on a Swedish lake. There are also organized races and the big car manufacturers come here every winter to test their new car models, this is big business here for many small towns. According to the national safety instructions here, the ice should be at least 10 cm for a person, 15-20 cm for a normal car and 30 cm for a heavy car with passengers. --cart-Talk 18:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks W.carter for your clarification and remembering that I'm a person from the caribean sea and I don't underestand too much this subjects, Btw, I'm very scared off cold weather and in my ignorance I came to the wrong conclusion. I loved the video although I do not know if I have the strength to go to a frozen lake and walk --The Photographer 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I would have similar reactions to things in your part of the world. ;) --cart-Talk 21:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not as striking compositionally as the other ones, and too noisy and unsharp for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find this photo quite compelling and would like to vote for it, but I will have to oppose unless the problems noted by Daniel can be ameliorated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose per Daniel --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel & company. -- Pofka (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is really great, but the image is too noisy. Sorry. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above, subject to change if the photo is edited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flashing yellow traffic light 3086.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2017 at 08:53:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Well-Informed Optimist -- Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{s}}~~ I withdraw my nomination -- Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing outstanding --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Лебеди во Охридско Езеро.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2017 at 12:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info created by Ntshzh - uploaded by Ntshzh - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but the birds are not in focus/unsharp. Charles (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Charles. PumpkinSky talk 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I agree that this photo has technical imperfections, but I feel impelled to vote for this photo of a loving couple (as we know swans are monogamous life pairs) cuddling and forming a heart shape with their necks and bills, plus the reflection and the shapes of the rest of their bodies really make this a good composition, in my opinion. Maybe I'm too sentimental, but this one touches me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ivan, but even when I tried to optimize the picture, it is still not sharp enough. Also I do not like the b/w, I would prefer colors. -- -donald- (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue-tailed Yellow Skimmer Palpopleura sexmaculata.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2017 at 03:47:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info created by PJeganathan - uploaded by PJeganathan - nominated by Shankar Raman -- Shankar Raman (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shankar Raman (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose End of the abdomen is not in focus. Charles (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. The compound eye is very well photographed, and in general, this is a very good capture, but there are such expert photographers of dragonflies on Commons that they really up the standard for dragonfly FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:High Trestle Trail Bridge, Madrid, Iowa, United States (Unsplash F9o7u-CnDJk).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2017 at 21:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Tony Webster - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A really striking image of a bridge over a stark landscape, seemingly to nowhere and for all the viewer knows, perhaps also from nowhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a really good scenery, but the image quality is too bad --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Uoaei1, great subject and photo but when you can see the graininess at a normal PC screen size it is too much. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Painful oppose Very mystical and extraordinary picture, but the quality questions me as well... I would immediately oppose any other picture of such quality and noise. What surprises me more is that it was taken with a really solid Mark III. Huge pity. -- Pofka (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the quality issues noted, I would like to see it with that top arch cropped out ... those fragments are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood this "do-not-cut-into-x" thing. On this pic it flows naturally, and not having the whole frame makes it more intimate, like somehow you're "in it". Imho. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Colin's !vote below. For me, maybe it's because I'm as tall as I am, but seeing things like that hanging just over the view line almost makes me duck so I won't bang my head into them ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a great bridge and very photogenic. The photo has been heavily processed, with sharpening halos and a noisy sky resulting from this. Also the crop is not optimal IMO, with the upper bars distracting the eye from the tunnel effect (it's supposed to be like a mine tunnel). The image is also taken off centre, yet the middle of the tunnel/bridge is central so it looks off. I uploaded a crop with some NR applied: File:High Trestle Trail Bridge, Madrid, Iowa, United States (Unsplash F9o7u-CnDJk) CropNR.jpg, but there's no way to undo some of the issues with the processing without the raw file. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you've improved the image a lot - I'd support the "alternative" --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --cart-Talk 20:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+2. Much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This would be really FP if the image quality is good... Such a pity... --★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, if the crop will become an alternative, I will weakly support it. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Edited on 12:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Pokéfan95, FPC is usually counted by a bot, so please only support/oppose nominations that are actually formally proposed, and also please avoid anything other than the standard "Support"/"s", "Oppose"/"o" (plus "Cmt" and "Neutral") templates (you can add a parameter to them to include alternative text such as "weak support") as the bot only counts the two main voting templates and they count fully regardless of whether your vote is strong or weak. -- Colin (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my statement above so that it would be clear. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fæ, we don't see you in this section very often, do you know about the practice of making an alt-nomination? Several users have asked for it. If not, see this for an example or just ask for help and we'll fix it for you. --cart-Talk 09:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per earlier discussions on talk-FPC on "alternatives", it is up to the nominator Fæ to agree to adding or to propose any alternatives in their nomination. For example, the nominator may feel the original is best, so isn't required to have their nomination confused by alternatives if they don't wish it. Failing that, the other images can be nominated later if there is support for it. -- Colin (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, I just wasn't sure Fæ knew the option existed, thanks for adding info. --cart-Talk 10:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Noise is minus point but nice. --Laitche (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After much thinking Support this one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome image! --Lošmi (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Persépolis, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 64-68 PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2017 at 18:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info General view of Persepolis ("The Persian City"), situated 60 kilometres (37 mi) northeast of the city of Shiraz in Fars Province, Iran. The UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1979 dates back to 515 BC and it was the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire. Poc o² 18:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking to the horizon I thought it have to be straightened. But the verticals are correct. So it´s an outstanding image of an outstanding place. --Milseburg (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland 25.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 04:36:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Fagaceae.
Info Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000 area of Friesland province. Solitaire oak on heath field. To me this is a simple picture of a beautiful oak (Quercus). With the lower part of the picture a powerful line-up from the right to the left. Behind the tree crown, the irregular shapes of the clouds. created all by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and another tree... ;-) BTW, could you remove the spot in the clouds on the upper right corner? --Basotxerri (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Do you want to mark the spot? I do not see the stain (have bad eyes). Thank you.

Done I've marked the spots in some note, finally there were four... I hope they were really there and not on my glasses... --Basotxerri (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. Your glasses are still fine. I shot the bird with a Televizier. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 07:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also like this as a gothic B&W version --Basotxerri (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the B&W version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Adarga (Nymphaea alba), Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2017 at 03:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info White water rose (Nymphaea alba), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 03:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 03:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०, for this nomination! Poc o² 06:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 07:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Quirinale cortile interno Roma.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2017 at 21:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wowed by this. Also, I know everything is perfectly straight, but the slightly tilted shadow creates a discomfiting effect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Good QI/VI but not an FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective Distortion. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 05:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question @Moheen Reeyad: Thanks for the hint. Could you please show me where so I can correct it --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The building is tilt. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - fixed Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 7314-20.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2017 at 07:06:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:XRay - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was wowed by this at first sight in QIC. And then on viewing it at larger sizes, I was impressed with the photo's clarity and light control. I hope you enjoy the place and the photo as much as I do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great job on the exposure/HDR! But while I can totally accept some wide-angle distortion in pictures like this, that's a bit too much for me (chairs in the foreground). --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see your point on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per El Grafo. Chairs do seem to be a common problem in this regard because we know that can't possibly be right. A crop might help? -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to Ikan Kekek for nomination. BTW: The chapel wasn't very symmetric. A crop would crop the paintings right and left too. May be I'll extract the image as derivate. --XRay ^talk 17:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're welcome. Too bad about losing those paintings in the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 7314-20 -- 2.jpg

Info As proposed by @El Grafo, Colin, and Daniel Case: Here is the square crop. And you're right, it's nice. --XRay ^talk 18:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, Uoaei1, and Martin Falbisoner: FYI, now there is an alternative. --XRay ^talk 18:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am fine with both versions --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support also fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Me too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 00:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one I can support and the light is excellent. --cart-Talk 10:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 17:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 7314-20 -- 2.jpg

File:Jesus with the cross in Duomo (San Gimignano).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2017 at 19:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 00:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't know; it seems a bit unsharp near the corners. What other pictures do we have for comparison's sake? Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, the bottom is ruined by moisture ... is of the 1330. Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very good (and complete) photo of an important fresco. Should be nominated to VIC, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did nominate it on VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Ruhmeshalle, Heeresgeschichtliches Museum (Vienna) 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2017 at 16:44:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 00:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And seven --Llez (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tom Thomson - The West Wind - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2017 at 10:35:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Landscape
Info created by Tom Thomson, photographed by Google Cultural Institute - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Ymblanter -- Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 00:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sort of a prototypical Yes cover ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica de Nuestra Señora de Licheń, Stary Licheń, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 33-35 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2017 at 07:50:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info View at dusk of the Basilica of Our Lady of Sorrows, Queen of Poland, located in the village of Licheń Stary, near Konin, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. The basilica, designed by Barbara Bielecka was built between 1994 and 2004. With a 120 metres (390 ft) long and 77 metres (253 ft) wide nave, a 98 metres (322 ft) high central dome, and a 141.5 metres (464 ft) high tower, it is Poland's largest church and one of the largest churches in the world. All by me, Poc o² 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good one. Glad you got around to nominating it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, especially with no people. Charles (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely tones, I like especially the colour gradient in the sky. The building is quite interesting as well. An excellent piece of architectural photography. --Code (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, esp. Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ Support on making that tower at the right lean out less. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: I just applied some slight adjustments. Poc o² 10:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 20:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is beautiful done --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The color of the sky is perfect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good light and colors Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:120 inch HDPE pipe installation in Mexico City.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 04:14:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow; it's just too busy for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DC. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monkey Island in São Paulo Zoo, Brazil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 12:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by -- The Photographer 12:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lining up the structures and reflections it looks a bit tilted to the left. --cart-Talk 12:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done W.carter Indeed, the photo was tilted. Sometimes it is difficult to realize but I have been guided by 3 trunks of the island to correct it. Thanks --The Photographer 12:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great lighting seb26 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo, cloudy sky is well done and the composition is good --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Might it be, that the focal plane is slightly behind the island? In full resolution, the monkey playground (for example roofs and ropes) is seemingly less sharp than the the trees on the border of the lake. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is a visual effect because the deep of field and the filter NS --The Photographer 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filter might be. Anyway, not really a strong effect, hence

Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lazy tropical mood overcomes a challenging composition. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I remember this one from QIC. Glad to see it here. Rich composition to me, and beautiful tones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 14:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OgledaloGolemoEzero.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2017 at 12:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Specular reflection of the Great Pelister Lake

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an eyecatcher --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice symmetry, but I can't see hear anything eye catching or outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PumpkinSky talk 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseberg. Moreover, since the reflection is of course not sharp by nature, the land has to be very sharp by contrast, and it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely symmetry reflecting the pattern in the lake on the horizontal plane. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mountain looks blurred in the lake, because the sea doesn't look like a mirror. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmerikaner: It's possible to capture some clearer parts of the lake, but you can never capture a whole lake that reflects like a mirror. The unruly water on the bottom left is natural for such kind of images. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 14:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pangong Tso 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 09:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Pangong Tso, Tibetan for "high grassland lake", is a lake in the Himalayas situated at a height of about 4,350 m. It is 134 km long and extends from India to China. Approximately 60% of the length of the lake lies in China. The lake is 5 km (3.1 mi) wide at its broadest point. All together it covers 604 km2. During winter the lake freezes completely, despite being saline water. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fun fact: in the 2011 Kollywood movie Vedi you can see the exact same view as a backdrop behind Sameera Reddy around the 36 minute mark (eta: different perspective ofc). Director P Deva opted to re-shoot the scene as he liked the lights much better than a few hours before when they originally filmed it. Or so I was told. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the cloud shadows speckling the mountains. You see that often enough in mountain landscapes, but owing to the light color of the mountains it works particularly well here. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not sure why the nearest foreground is unsharp, but the picture is spectacular in every other way, a very strong FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsharp because there's no way (save for a pinhole) to get everything in focus on a full frame 30cm-infinity. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that was the wrong question. The real question is: Why didn't you crop out the unsharp parts of the foreground, and why not do it now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't agree with KoH's "compositionally unnecessary" point. ;) In any case you can just crop it in an editing program to see if it looks better to you or not, takes all of 10 seconds. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It takes less time than that to simply put my fingers on the screen. I don't see what is harmed by cropping out some of the water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that would improve, in fact it would unbalance the comp with the sky crushing the lake - which would be ironic considering the lake is the important thing here. -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really could afford to crop at least some of the foreground. But it's your decision, and I surely won't rescind my support vote if you don't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for barging in here, but please don't crop. Even if some of the foreground is a bit unsharp, looking at the "bigger picture" there are several waves there that perfectly emulates the shapes of the mountains, but in dark colors not light. They create a counterpoint in the lower section of the image of what's going on in the upper part even if they are not as sharp as the rest. Without them the photo becomes unbalanced. --cart-Talk 09:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not going to. Glad someone looked beyond "unsharp" and noticed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support but would prefer some cropping of the foreground, because it is 1) unsharp and 2) compositionally unnecessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may sound strange but I like the unsharp waves in the foreground in the picture. It makes me feel as if I was swimming there. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Protests opposing Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution in Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 12:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by The Photographer 12:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support strong educational and historical value seb26 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per seb26 --Ezarateesteban 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support OK, the forms and symmetry of the street sort of work well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It is a good historical documentation, but did the protest really look like this most of the time or have they just stopped to pose for photographer(s) here? The pictures we mostly see from Venezuelan protests are far from this peaceful and static image. --cart-Talk 09:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is in Sao Paulo, where protests might have been much more peaceful. By the way, I think that limits the historical importance of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take pictures in Venezuela protest in Venezuela was the more dangerous that I did in my life. At my side were friends who worked for the major news agencies with bulletproof vest and helmets with a marked green cross. I totally agree that these photos do not have the historical value that a photo in Venezuela at the moment, these protests outside of Venezuela are made around the world every day at the same time as part of international pressure to open a humanitarian channel and thus send medicine and food. BTW, this photo is on Paulista Avenue, the most important avenue in Brazil, there has been protesting for 50 days, it is possible without any danger in Brazil because it is a democratic country. I am doing paperwork to solve a problem with my passport so I can take photos of what is happening there and visit my family after four years. --The Photographer 11:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand: I don't want you to get killed for art! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take into account your suggestions, thank you for your concern --The Photographer 11:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support WClarke 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 14:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Tupolev Tu-160 overflying Moscow fix.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2017 at 12:42:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military_jet_aircraft
Info created by Alex Beltyukov - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Mareklug -- Mareklug ^talk 12:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual framing, somewhat oddly disturbing. -- Mareklug ^talk 12:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely unusual framing, but too much unsharpness and distortion, particularly near the corners. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support NIce image. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Sorry, afrer a second look I think, Daniel Case is right. --Milseburg (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel comment is right and I'm not expert in this area, however, IMHO it's a irremediable factor becasue it's the result of the airplane turbine. --The Photographer 11:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per The Photographer. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 22:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 14:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gardens of the Belvedere (Vienna) 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 10:51:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI for sure (statues are a little blown, but they're such a small part of the overall image) but not an FP for me as it's got so many elements that just don't fit together. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, not an interesting composition, not very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Granite cliff with pink jelly bean plant and common houseleek.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 16:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info One good thing about rain, it really brings out the color and structure in the cliffs here and turns them from dusty grey to dark drama. All by me, -- cart-Talk 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like some of the growth I saw on my trip to the Arctic two years ago. I like the bright red against the neutral greys. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Jetty at Gullmarsvik on a rainy day.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2017 at 15:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info A very wonky jetty (side view) over the mudflats in a bay of Gullmarn fjord. All by me, -- cart-Talk 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ It has insufficient dof but don't want to oppose on that alone. I'm still digesting the sky which seems (heavily?) edited as it's hard to believe this dynamic is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Still it looks good. I shalt revisit this in a few days and make a decision then. -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KennyOMG, yes I've upped the contrast a bit and played a little with the color curves plus some local adjustments. But if you want to check out how the two original photos I had looked like, they are in my dropbox (unedited jpegs straight from the camera) one with 0,0 EV and one with +0.3 EV. Please let me know if my attempt at drama is over the top. :) --cart-Talk 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Came back to Support this but unfortunately it seems my vote is not going to do anything here. :( -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry KennyOMG, it's the thought that counts. :) Thanks! --cart-Talk 09:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good composition, and the processing doesn't seem extreme at all to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan, like I've said on other nominations, we get some spectacular cloud formations here along the coastline. Sometimes, like this time, when a weather front comes in from the sea, you can see the sharp line in the sky with nice fluffy clouds and blue sky on one side and a dark looming 'carpet' on the other. Think I'll try to get a photo of one next time. --cart-Talk 21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the subtle shades and the forms. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The editing makes the whole thing look too grey, with not enough clarity. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I think you might be right, you have a keen eye. I've uploaded a new version with just the HDR and some very small light adjustments, no playing with the color curves. Pinging voters to see what you think: KennyOMG, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, King of Hearts. --cart-Talk 10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's been lightened, but I still don't notice a significant increase in contrast. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --cart-Talk 09:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Village Snad inside Mountain Orbata.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2017 at 14:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by meIssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! This sort of speaks to the small Neanderthal gene I'm supposed to be carrying somewhere inside me according to some scientists. The warm tones of the light in the cave makes it snug and comfy while we are looking out on a much larger colder world (metaphorically speaking). --cart-Talk 23:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoDear cart-Talk oh!<3 i like really that you feel that good feeling seeing it ... yes it is a metaphore outside the cave there was a feeling of 40°C ;) --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I wonder if it's perhaps overdone - the interior must have been much darker but we don't see that in the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose: This image is tilted clockwise - the tower and other verticals in the village are leaning. Please correct! --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1, something is wrong wit the alignment. Otherwise great. --Milseburg (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1, PumpkinSky talk 17:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Farmers Maket 1947 Oak Ridge.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2017 at 20:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Ed Westcott for the US Department of Energy Oak Ridge, uploaded and nominated by TheAmerikaner -- TheAmerikaner (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheAmerikaner (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please help me with this one. It's unusual to see such a big panorama from that long ago, and it stands as a historical document, but I'm not finding the view all that interesting. I feel like I must be missing something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whites and blacks provide a good amount of contrast, and the clouds help as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Technical quality not great, with smudged areas indicating problems with scan or clumsy retouching. -- Colin (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it is a good documentation of a sleepy little town in a bygone era, I don't find the picture or the quality wow-y enough for FP. --cart-Talk 09:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Milseburg (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Milseburg: You have to give a reasonable explanation when opposing. Thanks. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I agree with Colin and W.carter. --Milseburg (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support High resolution. Nice view. And there aren't other good images like that. --Juicebable (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Historical document of high quality. It would like a version with less wires, but otherwise nothing to say. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see reasons for VI but not for FP. --Milseburg (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and my remarks above. Ultimately, I agree with Milseburg. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entzia - Hayas Txumarregi 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2017 at 12:09:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by be: -- Basotxerri (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same tree, next try. Opposer's votes stated an unfortunate balance of the left side, so I've filled the image with more of the rock. Because of the winterly boring colours, I've chosen B&W this time. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ ~~Neutral~~ Bring back the original crop! Don't care if it's color or bw, that one rocked. (eta: I guess neutral since I don't think this is bad, per se, just it fails compared to the full crop.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you KennyOMG, but this isn't a new crop, it's a new image that I took one month later. It's almost the full image, so it can't be cropped towards the valley. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Went back to the previous one and indeed even the perspective is somewhat different. I still really miss the valley, and especially the trees down below. Ah well, everyone's a critic, eh? Seeing how the other one is unlikely to pass Support this one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The B&W version is too dull looking in my opinion. I like the colorful light green May 6 version better. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That'll be the third try! Thanks for the comment! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image does not convince me, I see nothing advantage. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would rather go with the green version now that it exists. --cart-Talk 10:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger, I like the color version more. To work as a grayscale image this would probably need some sharper contrasts. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all opposers (and the others, too), let's go for the coloured spring version. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basilica di San Giorgio Maggiore notte a Venezia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 00:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's rather unsharp, even for a 38 MP image. Also I just don't find the combination of colors very appealing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King: Gray plus blown-out lights. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many intersecting lines competing for my attention. Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dicker Stein - Frühjahr 2017.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 21:28:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Dicker Stein in Engelrod, Lautertal, Germany - Natural monument - All by Neptuul (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Neptuul (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My first thought upon seeing this was that it was a Wikivoyage banner. Daphne Lantier 22:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- wow, that's realy a quality vote --Neptuul (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My meaning was that this image looks to have been cut out of a larger more complete image, as WV banners are. Daphne Lantier 00:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To elaborate on Daphne's !vote, I think the crops are just too odd and distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the rocks are the natural monument, the rest of a volcan, Dicker Stein means fat stones. These rocks are within a thick forest. --Neptuul (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Neptuul (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air-to-air with a Textron AirLand Scorpion (1) (cropped).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2017 at 01:33:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military_jet_aircraft
Info created by Peng Chen - uploaded by Gijón16 - nominated by Base -- Base (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Base (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive focus, nice streamlined look to the plane. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we have enough aerial FPs that we can afford to be a bit more selective about what we promote. Yes, it is an impressive view, but two main faults here: 1) the angle and distance from the subject make it look like the center is bulging out a bit; 2) the subject is not well-lit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice view. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per KoH. Yann (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pico de la Zarza - summit.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 03:57:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Nice composition and colors, wish it were sharper. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thanks, I improved the sharpness --Llez (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much better. I support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Dülmener Wildpferde in der Wildbahn -- 2016 -- 4201.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 06:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As I mentioned at QIC, this is the best of your photos of Dülmen ponies that I've seen. I like the mood, light and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good one. --Code (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sehr gut. Tolle Stimmung! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 15:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is like looking at the models for the paintings in Lascaux. --cart-Talk 09:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy and grainy, but this actually works in the image's favor. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel --Llez (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent moment and composition, environment --The Photographer 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elymnias caudata-Kadavoor-2017-05-14-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 07:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Elymnias caudata (Elymnisa hypermnestra caudata), Tailed Palmfly, is a species of satyrid butterfly found in South India. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 07:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 07:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Charles (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little of privacy please --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It took me a while to realize that the white on the wings was coloring and not highlights from the flash! Silly me... --cart-Talk 08:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks cart; now I get an idea why this didn't get much reviews so far. The small on left is male. They are sexually dimorphic; slight variations (females have more whites) on underside and huge difference in upper-side. J e e 09:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems plausible. So here's a big sign: White spots on wings are NOT flash reflections. --cart-Talk 09:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Butterfly pr0n! Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --The Photographer 18:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Large vagrant (Nepheronia argia argia) male.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2017 at 11:25:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Ghana has over 800 different species of butterfly. This one (size 50/60mm) is nectaring on a hibiscus flower. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that red, even if the light is a little harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded - less harsh lighting. Charles (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the specimen is sharp and I like the red-green contrast. Could you reduce the noise a bit though? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - The butterfly is certainly very well photographed, especially the eye, but I don't find it that interesting or beautiful to look at. Instead, I want the flower to be the subject, but since that's not the photographer's intention, it's soft. Sorry, I hope I'm not a stinker for voting this way on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough @Ikan Kekek: , but it was your "Very good, possible FP candidate" comment at QIC that prompted me to nominate here! Charles (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. ;-) Actually, I like the new version better, so I'll change my vote to

Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The butterfly is very pretty, sharp and contrasting well with the flower, but that cut pistil ruins the composition for me. Sorry, I so wish I could support this. --cart-Talk 09:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per above, the flower is not well-framed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пантократор (Св. Богородица,Битола).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 10:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Roof fresco of Pantokrator, Nativity of the Theotokos Church, Bitola, Macedonia. My shot. --Mile (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Haunting image to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 15:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 05:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A striking image well captured. I just can't help seeing this like some picture from the late 60s—early 70s though. --cart-Talk 08:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cart those fellas, rockers, got some gramm of powder, and Churchils V-victory become Peace symbol, today most favourited at Asians. While Pantokrator is showing blessing, 3 fingers - Trinity, together showing I-X (Isos Hristos, X is H in cyrlic). Hand gesture is turned to you, so gesture to you. While outward hand gesture is more popular at Don Fanucci and similar Godfathers, and Pope also. --Mile (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was thinking more about the whole image. Maybe you are too young to remember a time when guys had long hair like this, tunics with bold patterns and necklaces of beads. :) --cart-Talk 11:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Peace out!" per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lizarraga - Saratsa - Paisaje 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 17:16:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me: Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful lighting. Would be better if it followed the rule of thirds but I get why you wanted to include the dark clouds at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's it, you're right: there have been two issues, the interesting clouds and the somewhat monotone foreground. You can have a look at the B&W version. Maybe you'd prefer that crop? --Basotxerri (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lizarraga - Saratsa - Paisaje 01.jpg is the black & white version, and I prefer that picture, not mainly because of the crop but mainly because the entire appearance makes more of an impact on me. I think part of my reaction is that the lighted white rocks are more emphasized in gray scale. Of course it's a tradeoff, because you sacrifice the greenery, but I'd support a substitution of the black & white picture in this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer the B&W version too but I wanted to nominate some colour image here (instead of mainly B&W pictures). These partially sun-lit beeches with its fresh green leaves are interesting, too. This image is well accepted here, so I won't change the nomination at this stage. Thanks for your comment! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another picture illustrating the sad fact, that whenever you shoot anything green with digital, it just gives you meh. Having said that wonderful picture, personal favorite is the road snaking off and away with the grass with trees on the side. I can hear it calling me... -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rocks in front seem a little blown despite minimal exposure, and the ridgeline looks a little weird, like the sky and ground were processed separately ... but overall it works. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phimeanakas, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 12.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 21:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Phimeanakas temple in Angkor Thom, former Khmer Empire, today Cambodia. The Khleang-style Hindu temple was built at the end of the 10th century, during the reign of Rajendravarman (from 941-968), then completed by Suryavarman I (who reigned from 1006 to 1050) in the shape of a three tier pyramid. All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Poetic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 05:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo. The shadows are just a smidgen too dark IMO, but it's your call. --cart-Talk 08:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TheAmerikaner (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, wish it didn't have that patch of blown cloud at top but otherwise great. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Garden locust (Acanthacris ruficornis).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 21:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Terrific. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support suitable background --Mile (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 05:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really, really good! --cart-Talk 08:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 10... --Basotxerri (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bg color gives a very nice effect together with the colors and structures of the locust. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality, maybe need a bit more of DoF (see legs) with a two pictures combination, however, IMHO it's ok for me --The Photographer 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two pictures combination - hand held in a puddle? Charles (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes basically Focus Stacking (I added a note) --The Photographer 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stolt Ilex (ship, 2010), Sète cf01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2017 at 15:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is too busy. I think with a telephoto, you're trying to isolate: either the subject is so far from the background that you can put it entirely out of focus, or you can zoom in on a single element in the background, undisturbed by anything else. What doesn't work for me here is the flattening of the perspective such that the background is just as prominent as the ship. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice light, very crisp and detailed, eye-catching colors of the the vessel in the foreground. I find it funny that the typeface used for the "No Smoking" warning is comparable in size to the letters used for the ship name. But KOH has a point wrt to the composition and the clutter there is in it. Thus, I cannot fully support. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016 Phnom Penh, Pałac Królewski, Srebrna Pagoda (02).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2017 at 09:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by me -- Halavar (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support dość podobne do poprzedniego, ale ładne dla oka --Pudelek (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 20:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the fact that there's no illumination on the main part of the building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good image but the shadowed side worried me a bit. You should clone out the blurry bird and one dust spot (see notes). Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the hint. New fixed version uploaded. --Halavar (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Cybularny ^Speak? 21:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Izvori na Crn Drim, Chun.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2017 at 13:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
Info created by Taskosmileski - uploaded by Taskosmileski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has its merits. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with the others. I might want more sky, but it's quite good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, no one's complained about the colors being perhaps a little saturated! However, I am OK with them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to be a party-pooper. It is a very nice scene, but it is lacking in quality. The light is too harsh and it looks like it has been subjected to too much noise reduction resulting in loss of detail. When I looked at the EXIF to find out what might explain this, since with good light such as this, these problems should not be there. Seeing that it is taken with an iPhone explained a lot. It is very good for a mobile photo, but IMO not enough for FP, sorry. --cart-Talk 12:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely scenery and a very traditional type of boat. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support seb26 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good,good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The water looks like a Monet painting and there is significant overexposure on the boat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand overexposure, but looking like a Monet painting is bad? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to capture reality, not blobs of paint. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a clear aesthetic statement. I don't think that's close to being true of every photograph that's been featured, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are legitimate artistic reasons to distort reality, and then cases where reality is unintentionally distorted via inadequate equipment or technique. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, of course. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have to agree with Cart. PumpkinSky talk 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:U.S. Air Force at Pittsburgh air show.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2017 at 17:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Jason Couillard - uploaded by TheAmerikaner - nominated by TheAmerikaner -- TheAmerikaner (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheAmerikaner (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely shot of high technical quality. Has wow for me. Please improve the categorization. It is in an overcrowded top-level category. See the other Thunderbird FP for inspiration wrt categorization. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but I can't find categories which are convenient whit this image. Is somebody able to help me? Thanks. I appology for my bad English, I go to school in Germany in low grade. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The license was wrong. The photo's info clearly states this is an Air Force photo but the license said US Army. I've fixed this for you. I've fixed the category for you too. Very nice photo. Support. PumpkinSky talk 13:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, @PumpkinSky: . --TheAmerikaner (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. I wish the vignetting were subtler, though, but the point is to focus attention on the planes more, and it accomplishes that. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and very nice: Excellent--Lmbuga (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent capture. That maneuver looks ridiculously dangerous, but also impressive and beautiful. Glad I wasn't there. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ohrid Lake and Trpejca seen from Galicica2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 11:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by IvanStojmirov - uploaded by IvanStojmirov - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unsharp, and even if that weren't a problem I'd suggest that it would be improved by cropping in on the inhabited area; as it is it is taking in too much. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very well stated. Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Most na istekot na vodopadot duf 2015.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 19:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Darkocv - uploaded by Darkocv - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Beautiful curves in the water and nice composition overall, but falls short on technical quality. The top right is overexposed and there is CA (which would be very visible if the resolution were more than 6 MP). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King; this is why people usually use ND filters to stop down when they do this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per tech problems noted above. Also I like at least some semblance of water in these long exposures, this is so long it looks more like whipped cream or strange frothing chemical waste, not matching the crisp landscape. With long exposure in a wood, you want the whole picture to reflect the dreamy, surreal mood of the strange-looking water. --cart-Talk 09:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rudder and propeller Beached fishing vessel Nørre Vorupør Denmark 2017-04-14.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2017 at 19:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info From one of my favorite places in the Thy National Park, by the North Sea coast in Denmark, there are still examples of beached fishing vessels. This one shows the rudder and propeller of the wooden hulled vessel Maagen (the gull) built in 1935. A vessel. which is still actively used for leisure angling for cod. I like the texture of the paint of the rudder, the galvanic anode used to protect it from corrosion and the special construction of the hull, which allows the vessel to be towed onto the beach without damaging the propeller and rudder. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost abstract. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice abstraction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info As has been pointed out by Colin post-closure, I mistook this vessel with a vessel beached next to it in the original description. It is actually the fishing vessel Skagerak built in 1986 that we see the propeller and rudder of here. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arches Fingers IMG 0058 3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 19:43:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info A natural rock formation in Arches National Park. I'm surprised it hasn't received more media coverage. 😉 Created, uploaded & nominated by Atsme 📞 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atsme 📞 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a rock that deserves recognition, it has a lot of wow, and the composition is good but the level of brilliant red CA and noise reduction is not FP, sorry. Any chance you could rework this from the raw file in a better way? --cart-Talk 06:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a try...Withdrawn for some post work. Atsme 📞 14:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Atsme: The FPX template is not used for withdrawing. Please place {{withdraw}} below here and sign your post, that is the correct way to do it. Sorry about the bureaucracy but it is your nomination so I can't do it for you. Welcome back with a better version! --cart-Talk 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies. Atsme 📞 17:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pantheon (Rome) - Dome interior.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2017 at 08:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info A Roman coffered concrete dome, with a central opening (oculus) to the sky. Almost two thousand years after it was built, the Pantheon's dome is still the world's largest unreinforced concrete dome. The height to the oculus and the diameter of the interior circle are the same, 142 feet (43 m). All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the simplicity of it and the ray of light but could you please fix the almost overexposed detail up in the left corner. Corners to the right are also a bit soft. --cart-Talk 10:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some centralization here ? --Mile (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Corner sharpness is rather weak, too much clarity and the center is fully blown. Lack of symmetry, too. There are better ways to catch the Tyndall effect in this building IMO. --Code (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per cart's comment. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Form doesn't work for me. I'd probably rather see a circular photo of this motif, and yes, it is an impressive one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quality is OK for me, light is nice, but I'd also like a square composition with the full circle. Yann (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also to me, unfortunately the dome is very large and is very low and even with a 10 mm I can take it all. For example, the Brunelleschi's dome, that is 45 meters wide (that of the Pantheon is 43), is 116 meters high unlike the pantheon which is only 43 high.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papilio polymnestor-Kadavoor-2017-05-14-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2017 at 09:29:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Pre-pupatory larva of Papilio polymnestor, Blue Mormon, a large swallowtail butterfly found in India and Sri Lanka. All by Jkadavoor -- J e e 09:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 09:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hang in there! :) Very artistic and striking, even if the larva is a bit too fat for the DoF (soft midsection). --cart-Talk 10:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Cart. Hope good at 2000x3000. That's why I advocate for some downsampling. :) J e e 11:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 17:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eiche in der Kreuzwiese.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 10:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Eiche in der Kreuzwiese (Oak in the Cross Meadow) in Engelrod, Lautertal, Germany - Natural monument - All by --Neptuul (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Neptuul (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unrelated, but it would help translation: would someone be able to clarify the meaning of 'cross meadow'? seb26 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't work for me, probably due to color and composition. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think it's not natural? It's the green? In our region the spring starts late, here is it nine month winter and three month cold :) -- Neptuul (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like the blue of the sky seeming a little off. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The top crop being so close to the top of the tree makes me feel tension, and I don't think that's the mood of the rest of the picture, so it clashes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support work for me Albertus teolog (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:A pigeon near Sphinxes in Saint Petersburg.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2017 at 22:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Columbidae
Info created by Chan-Fan on May 19, 2017 - uploaded by Chan-Fan - nominated by Chan-Fan
This photo was taken in Saint Petersburg on May 19, 2017 during a walk along the Universitetskaya Embankment. A pigeon is sitting near the Egyptian Sphinx, which is about 3500 years old and was brought to St. Petersburg from Luxor (Thebes). Inscriptions at the stone (see photo) were never decrypted. -- Chan-Fan 22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Chan-Fan 22:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - I fixed the category: It's Columba livia, the Latin name for the rock dove; the family Columbidae is too wide a category. And I oppose because although you have a good motif, I find this picture inferior to FP pigeon portraits such as File:Pigeon portrait 4861.jpg, which is a head-and-neck shot, File:Rock Pigeon Columba livia.jpg and File:Fonte Gaia - she wolf detail.jpg, which focuses on the Lupa Senese on the Fonte Gaia as much as on the pigeon. In this photo, the Sphinx is a nice background element but not the subject; it's merely what the pigeon is sitting on. The pigeon is pretty, but the parts of him (?) we see are mostly in shadow and come out as noisy/unsharp at full size. Granted, full size is a lot bigger in your photo than in the other ones I'm comparing it to. But in general, we like our bird portraits very clear at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Cayambe (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entzia - Hayas Txumarregi 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2017 at 18:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me: -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same tree, third try. Greener impossible, however I'd prefer to have some fog below... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of these have to pass eventually.... -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the third time's the charm here. Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Beautiful colors and composition, though background is a bit smudged. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green support -- Slaunger (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haliotis kamtschatkana assimilis 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 02:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created & uploaded by H. Zell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is the first of a series of featurable abalone shells that will be nominated to FPC over time. This is the most spectacular that I've seen so far, but not the only beautiful one by a long shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 03:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks for the nomination --Llez (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Irridescent. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 18:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mausoleos de Yeddi Gumbez, Shamakhi, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-27, DD 01-03 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2017 at 20:35:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info View of one of the Yeddi Gumbez Mausoleums at dusk in Şamaxı, Azerbaijan. The cemetery dates from 1810 and was built for a family of Mustafa khan – the last khan of Shamakhi. The name of the architect – ustad Taghi – is also known due to a ligature on the mausoleum. All by me, Poc o² 20:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Originally I wanted to suggest a different crop, basically keeping the aspect ratio and cropping from the right/bottom until the botton is below the yellow'ish rock. Sadly that won't work since then there would be a bunch of random plant parts just hanging at the bottom in nothing. If you get what I'm saying. Anyway good as is. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice juxtaposition of historic foreground and modern background with the transmission tower. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand 018.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 15:57:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View over the Hulshorsterzand. A living sand drift. The sand is sometimes blown over trees allowing them to be buried. See this photo: All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very cool, very good EV (never heard of these before) but... tilts to the right? I quickly checked in PS and seems to be (aligned with the clouds) but can't be 100% sure if that's correct or not. Support Maybe I was wrong about the tilt... -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 22:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice colors and clouds, but composition leaves something to be desired. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. High EV and good QI/VI, but the composition feels somewhat random to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King and Ikan, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:BraunschweigerDom Vierung WB2485 DSC00065 PtrQs.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 00:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info Brunswick Cathedral Ss. Blaise, Paintings in the Crossing. Created by PtrQs - uploaded by PtrQs - nominated by PtrQs -- PtrQs (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PtrQs (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but do you have additional information on this, e.g. when tis was painted? --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The romanesque nave of the Brunswick Cathedral was built between 1173 and 1226. After many additions over the centuries, the original paintings from the middle of the 13th century were rediscovered in 1845. As the conservators in these days felt free to complete missing parts in a historism way, not all the paintings are in their original status. A more detailed description you will find at Braunschweiger Dom Saecco-Malereien (germ.).

Further famous artefacts in this cathedral are a Seven-armed Candelabrum of 4,80m and the Imervard Cross, both from the second half of the 12th century.

The pictured painting in the crossing shows the celestial Jerusalem.

Nowadays there are intentions to place a second organ in the crossing. If this should happen, the days of seeing the full paintings of crossing and transept will be gone ... --PtrQs (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PtrQs: Thanks, but I would like the most relevant information you give here also on the image page. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. --PtrQs (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit different, more medieval than the church ceilings we've mostly seen. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloem van een Rhododendron in een mooie zachte tint 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 05:07:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Ericaceae.
Info Flower of a Rhododendron in a beautiful soft tone. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I think it might work even better with those blurry buds at the bottom cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you indicate how much should be cut? Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks to both Famberhorst and Daniel, we can now really enjoy this pale beauty without any distractions. --cart-Talk 20:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Dachgeschoss -- 2017 -- 9904-10 (bw).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 06:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting forms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent destruction of haramony. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 15:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dawn is near and yet you've entered the haunted house. You'd better leave soon. No! Don't go upstairs or you'll never been seen again alive... --Basotxerri (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice (and 7...)--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Basotxerri. ;) --Yann (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definetly per Basotxerri. :) --cart-Talk 08:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basotxerri and cart. Looks like a still from a '60s horror film. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...and I imagine a building in an environment like this here... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fresh composition, well done --The Photographer 18:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I prefer the color version: . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember your argument the "the world is colorfull", however, in this case IMHO the important is the forms and add color could generate only distraction in the composition, the forms of the windows and the door result in a geometric paralelism. I respect your opinion --The Photographer 11:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right and thanks for you respect for my opinion. Composition is "only" the half of an image, the colors are always important for me. A BW image is only a halt true. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:В полночь у озера Ожогино.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 09:56:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by User:Виктор Габышев - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just slightly noisy, but for this scene of vast seeming desolation, it's a small price to pay in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This also could have been categorized under "Natural phenomena". Here's the description: "The midnight sun during polar day near the lake Ozhogino, the Sakha Republic, Russia". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 11:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Виктор Габышев: Could you remove the CAs of the sun reflections on the ice? --Basotxerri (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Виктор Габышев, in case you are using Google Translate, "CAs" are "chromatic aberrations". As sunlight has many components, I'm not recognizing chromatic aberrations in the rays of sunlight on the ice, but there are many regulars here who have a much keener eye for chromatic aberration than I do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to that. The CA is the purple/green kind, visible on the ice fragments near the bottom (Wow, I don't remember Ivvavik being this wintry-looking at the same latitude and almost the same time of year a year earlier! Interesting. Bonus points for shooting the midnight sun on the summer solstice (or almost it)). Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good, very good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really love it so much! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 06:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice but wrong color balance; too much magenta. And wild CAs in the Sun's reflection. Sting (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an edited proposition, with corrections of CAs, color noise, color balance, flares, strait horizon: Edited version

Thanks for doing the edits. Your version looks more normal, but I'm wondering if it's really impossible for midnight sun to sometimes have a purple tint to it. If Виктор Габышев would like to substitute your version, he can, but we haven't heard from him in this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ausblick Bubenbader Stein.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 20:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info The rocks on Bubenbader Stein are a natural monument, offering a view over the Rhön Mountains. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a bit underexposed --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I spent more light. A bit as proposed. Thanks for the hint. --Milseburg (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows in the bottom left are rather distracting, and the image is a bit too dark overall. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the ballance is ok. Otherwise clouds are going to become blown out. The rocks are the most time backlit or in shadow by trees. --Milseburg (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not all scenes can produce a featured picture; if it's the case that those particular rocks are never well-lit, then they should not be included in the foreground of any composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not ideal ... the background looks sort of flattened and the light-green trees just left of center seem posterized. But I'm not bothered by the shadows on the rocks, and the scene as a whole is interesting enough to overcome its other flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - High EV, but not an FP to me. I think I'm feeling like there's too much of the rocks and not enough background and sky to make the picture feel like it opens out more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguana en el parque de Jaraguá.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 18:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info All by The Photographer 18:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the earth tones in the front play off the brighter greens and blues in back. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this in a terrarium with the green plantlike thing on the right side painted on a wall? At least that is the impression I get. --cart-Talk 09:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done ~~Mr.~~ W.carter!, you're right it's a plant painted on the wall. You are an excellent observer perhaps only surpassed by Colin. Thanks for your remark :) --The Photographer 11:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming. At first glance it bugged me a little even if the iguana is very nice, I think about it a bit more before I vote. "Mr"? Surely by now you must know that I'm a woman.

--cart-Talk 12:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really sorry, this was a mistake that will not happen again. Forgive me --The Photographer 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not up to FP standard. Charles (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama of Lake Bracciano from Montefiascone.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 18:57:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info Lake Bracciano (Italian: Lago di Bracciano) is a lake of volcanic origin in the Italian region of Lazio, 32 km (20 mi) northwest of Rome. It is the second largest lake in the region (second only to Lake Bolsena) and one of the major lakes of Italy. It has a circular perimeter of approximately 32 km (20 mi). Its inflow is from precipitation runoff and percolation, and from underground springs, and its outflow is the Arrone.The lake owes its origin to intense volcanic activity from 600,000 to 40,000 years before present, which created many small volcanoes in the Sabatino territory. The main magma chamber was situated under the present lake of Bracciano. Its collapse created the caldera now occupied by the lake, which is a crater lake. Some small craters are still recognisable around the lake and in the immediate vicinity.The lake is an important tourist attraction situated near Rome. As it serves as a drinking water reservoir for the city of Rome it has been under control since 1986 in order to avoid pollution of its waters. The use of motorboats is strictly forbidden (exceptions being made for a few professional fisherman and the authorities), and a centralised sewer system has been built for all the bordering towns in order to avoid any spoiling of the water quality. This makes Bracciano one of the cleanest lakes of Italy. The absence of motorized navigation (apart from police boats) favours sailing, canoeing and swimming.In the last few years the lake and its surroundings have been brought under further protection by the creation of a regional park, the Parco Regionale del complesso lacuale di Bracciano Martignano.Under Pope Paul V, water was brought from Lake Bracciano to the Trastevere region of Rome and (via the Ponte Sisto) to the Rione of Regola. All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The clouds closest to the horizon are interesting, but the foreground is not distinctive enough from a compositional perspective (and also a bit unsharp). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I respect this as a good composition, and I'd like to see a similar shot in somewhat warmer light, with a sharper foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light and the composition. Useful description. Good EV. Yann (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view of the London Eye. MOD 45146076.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 08:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Paul A'Barrow taken from a Lynx Mk8, in use in three different languages on articles about the London Eye - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality: unsharp, chromatic aberrations, overexposed whites. Interesting view, but not unique nowadays, could be taken with a drone too, and a good drone would provide better quality (if correctly exposed + postprocessed) --A.Savin 11:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Army Athletics Long Jumper at The Inter Corps Athletics Competition at Tidworth, Wiltshire MOD 45152793 (cropped).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 08:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Sergeant Ian Forsyth - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite action photo. --cart-Talk 10:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. I find this a compelling image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent mood! --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just well perfornmed !! --The Photographer 11:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Ezarateesteban 14:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Atsme 📞 03:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Maire (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Kettle Tulap3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2017 at 16:43:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image could potentially have educational or encyclopedic value, but IMO the foreground is not bright enough, as the sunlight is obstructed, making the colors duller. Along with that, the ground on the left side of the image either appears to not be level, or is distorted when compared to the right side. Sorry. WClarke 03:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commentcrop it and lighten it up per the comment at photo critques. PumpkinSky talk 13:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, this was not the photo at Photo critiques I suggested should be cropped and brightened, that was another photo of this construction. --cart-Talk 17:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very high informational value, a rather striking composition and has wow. But the lightning is not good enough for FP in my opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Given that most of the side we can see is gray, stronger light would really help. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heres looking at you.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2017 at 02:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image is exceptional. The narrow depth of field fully isolates the subject, and brings all focus to the intricate textures and features of the fish, and its complex blending of colors. No complaints from me. WClarke 04:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question This is a really cool image! Is there any chance of identifying the species? I think it would be very sad that such a picture would stay with these three global categories. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Basotxerri and even if the name of the file is very to the point and funny, it should be changed. Puns and jokes in file names are unfortunately not a part of FP names. Please, try to come up with something that is more encyclopedic as well as something you find appropriate. --cart-Talk 08:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional. Eye socket not all in focus. Charles (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't matter. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss the "Wow"-effect. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Woow. The shallow DOF drives the eye the forefront of the eye of the fish, and the use of diagonals and lines makes up a great composition. The categorization is not good enough though. The fish should be identified. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles --Cvmontuy (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nyceryx continua continua MHNT CUT 2010 0 131 Itatiaia National Park Brazil dorsal.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 19:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by User:Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an excellent photo of the species. -- Peulle (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best of these specimen photos I've seen. The colors really stand out. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 22:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good choice; thanks to Peulle --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent collection. Atsme 📞 03:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality as usual. Charles (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Vote added later. J e e 05:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nyceryx continua continua MHNT CUT 2010 0 131 Itatiaia National Park Brazil ventral.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 20:02:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a truly spectacular photo of the species.-- Peulle (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 22:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As good as the one below. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good choice; thanks to Peulle --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely! Atsme 📞 03:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality as usual. Charles (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Praha Old Jewish Cemetery Panorama 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2017 at 08:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Old Jewish Cemetery (in Czech Starý židovský hřbitov) in the Old Town of Prague, Czech Republic. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the rhythm of this composition, and it's also poignant, as we see the damage to the graveyard, I'm guessing from the time the Nazis must have knocked the gravestones over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info During the more than three centuries in which it was in active use, the cemetery continually struggled with the lack of space. Piety and respect for the deceased ancestors does not allow the Jews to abolish old graves. For this reason, twelve layers of graves now exist, giving the cemetery the shape of a flat hill. As new levels were added it was necessary either to lay over the gravestones associated with the older (and lower) graves to protect them, or else to elevate the stones to the new, higher surface. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Israel, if they find old Jewish graves during the construction of a highway, the highway normally gets rerouted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very awkward crop. Charles (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very delicate and nice light. My immediate impression was that is is a very busy and cluttered composition, but I guess that is the whole point as the grave stones are not that ordered due to the very high density of graves. The light brown building a bit to the right in the bg need some vertical alignment lines in Hugin, it is tilted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Charles.--Jebulon (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i dislike building behind, also shadow-sun combo isnt so good, i would focus just on the stones-nekropolas. --Mile (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cool tones actually work well for an urban cemetery. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support real urban --Neptuul (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places