Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2017

File:Tower Bridge at Dawn with Halloween Colours.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2017 at 01:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Tower bridge at dawn. It's been downsampled, and metadata is sparse, but we've passed another of his images under the same conditions.
Info created and uploaded by George Johnson - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is wowing and the composition, as well. But it is not convincing from the technical point of view: the image is pretty small (it looks downsized) and the highlights in the reflection look awkward (specially the long curved cable, I added a note). Btw, in the EXIF data George made this statement: "This image is copyright of George Johnson Photography and may not be edited, used or distributed without the express permission of George Johnson Photography.". Are you aware that the license you publish your image with is incompatible with that? Everybody can modify that image and distribute it without your permission per CC-BY-SA as long as they use the same license and credit the work to you. 12:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that George uploaded the picture himself, the CC-By-SA notice already counts as "express permission" for everyone so it looks fine to me. He still holds copyright after all. dllu (t,c) 17:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Image is pretty downsampled and I'm not a huge fan of how the rocks near the riverbank on the right are treated. Also, while the colours are pretty, the tone mapping looks a little odd and may have caused some strange halos or colour bleeding. For example, the left tower's roof is bleeding green into the sky. dllu (t,c) 17:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose per dllu. The lack of .EXIF data that might tell us how long this was exposed for, among other things, isn't helpful. I also am bothered by the crop on the bottom as well as the one on the right. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky beneath the bridge doesn't seem consistent with the sky above. Charles (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 18:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beggar Woman.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2017 at 00:22:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very affecting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have some dignity for other people. --Mile (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mile no disrespect meant with this image. In fact, it is a very light interpretation of a social reality. Beggars, begging, poverty, exploitation by themselves are a subject for social, sociological, political, economic, etc., studies. This image illustrates thaose issues, maybe... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tomascastelazo what might be black-white for some for other can be white-black, so get your position. For me this should would be hard-for my mind. I suppose person would not like to be photographed, even if person affirmed shoting. Photographers bacame more predators, thats why i am affraid to go to shot my kindergarten. Too often we dont think on person which we shot at and how hard can it be. @Peulle: you gave us comparasion with migrating mother, for me more portrait shot (not begging). This citations tell all: "...the family wasn’t happy about the Migrant Mother photograph: “We were ashamed of it. We didn’t want no one to know who we were.” and "When the picture was taken, she claimed that Lange assured her the picture would never be published. She also said that Lange promised to send her a copy and she never did." Even more, they pumped up that story like CNN and FOX News does. One photographer said “To photograph it is to put on the same line of sight the head, the eye and the heart.” You gave one comparison, but i think this is more comparable. Hunting for the prize left many dead, not just for Pulitzer, even for "Like" on social media. You know...Mikey LIKES it! --Mile (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mile: I recommend reading the rest of the article too; as you can see, the ending goes: "Florence Owens Thompson suffered a stroke in August of 1983. Her family couldn’t afford the medical treatment, so they took advantage of their mother’s status as the Migrant Mother. They raised over $25,000 (about $58,000 today) for her medical care through donations from the American public. That experience changed the family’s opinion of the photograph as they realized how many people their mother’s picture touched.".--Peulle (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read it all, didnt skip it. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that as photographers we should document what is happening all around us in our society, not just pretty buildings, preferably as respectfully as possible. Looking back at history, we will always need photographs, however horrible, since they will make us understand things better than any text can do. Even so, photographers have often been used as scapegoats for people's frustration and anger over a situation they feel they can't handle. I spoke with some ambulance personnel not long ago. They told me that when they arrive at an accident, people are hurt, afraid, irrational and they need someone to lash out at. Since there are no others at the scene of the accident, they direct their anger and frustration at the police and ambulance personnel. So the ambulance guys are always grateful when the photographers arrive, since people turn on them instead and let the ambulance crew work in peace. There are many more strong, famous photos where people have blamed the photographer who documented it, instead of those responsible for the situation in the photo. It is a modern version of "shooting the messenger". --cart-Talk 17:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I can say many things about this image, but my main argument is that of documenting a social reality, even though the issue may not be pretty. In this particular image, it is pretty sterile, for it really lacks the drama that the subject matter can elicit. I tried to illustrate the phenomena in a very clean, abstract manner. These beggars #REDIRECT [[1]], in my opinion, are doing a job, for they do it in a very systematic way. I try not to judge them on the personal level, but it also seems to me that they choose to do this over other activities that could earn them money. Why do I say that? Well, I´ve seen them in many places, and I can see when they beg out of necessity and when they beg as a job. There is a huge difference. But regardless of the motivation or conditions, begging is begging, and beggars use public spaces to do their thing, and as such, they are fair game photographically for documenting purposes, for they are the expression of a social condition that needs management, and photography is a tool to do just that. As an observer of social phenomena and as a photographer I document this with a cold mind and cold heart, not judging, just showing what is. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose With the hidden face this does not really affect me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories fixed. As for the objection by Mile, I don't understand why this image should show a lack of dignity or decency seeing as the face does not show. Furthermore, the subject should not be avoided for sensitivity's sake: poverty is a huge problem that seems only to grow, and Commons' role is to document such facts. Photographers must strive to find the balance between documenting people's desperate situations while not serving to actively ridicule them. If you would like to read about a more famous example, I recommend this article about the iconic image Migrant Mother.

For me personally, however, this specific image is not particularly moving. The distance to the subject is too close not to show the personal features, IMO; it's an image that I think should show the facial features of the person in question. I

Oppose for this reason.--Peulle (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I restored the categories so people in social issues studies can find the image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Bad idea. Now the image is over-categorized. Read more here.--Peulle (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Peulle --Cvmontuy (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is simply too tight for my taste, especially the sides. If the face is hidden , you need a bit more of background and context instead. (Example) --cart-Talk 16:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart ... I was thinking of exactly the same example. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Prismo345 (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Prismo345, what's your reason for opposing? People are expected to give a reason for opposing on this board, even if it's only "per [Name]" (in other words, for the reasons they gave above). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan Kekek Im oppsing per the same reason of Uoaei1 thanks!! | Prismo (talk. | contr.) 05:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Gnosis (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 18:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Mini -- 2016 -- 5129-35.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 05:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sun creates the wow. I have a similar idea for my own car. :) --Peulle (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice mood. I would consider buying a car from such an ad. --cart-Talk 12:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suggests, without being too heavy-handed, that good things will come of playing the lottery. Very well-done. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dynamic range is handled very well -- Thennicke (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 18:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ferlach Bodental Bodenbauer mit Vertatscha 24102017 5697.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 06:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it! Very sharp. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support I would have liked less subdued color, but I defer to the photographer's choice here, because overall this works. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The gradations of light, color, and textures are a joy to look at at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really nice -- Thennicke (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice HalfGig talk 01:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite nice. --Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 18:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LeMansAscension 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2017 at 08:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Oldest stained glass window in situ (ca. 1050-1120) in Le Mans Cathedral (France), depicting the Virgin and apostles during the Ascension of the Christ. All by me -- Selbymay (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice too see it so close. --Mile (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Congratulations. Very valuable picture. Would be a good VIC nominee, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 18:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pharmacie in Paulista Avenue.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2017 at 01:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: ~~Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink~~ Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- The Photographer 01:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought I remembered your nominating a similar picture before, but anyway, I think this composition is an FP, and it's sharp enough for me to be fine with it. I'm not sure what the right category is, but "Food and drink" isn't right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scene, well captured. Camera lens tests would be improved if they photographed this scene rather than some boring test chart. "The hypertension pills are extremely sharp, the anti-fungals are acceptable, but the anti-histamines are soft, and the lens needs stopping down to bring them up to acceptable levels.". Actually, I'm impressed the corners are reasonable sharp given you shot this at f/1.8. I think you could have stopped down a bit and used a slower shutter -- the boxes aren't going anywhere! -- Colin (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would certainly be funny to see camera lens reviewers set up tripods in the pharmacy aisle. However it won't be a great test for lens sharpness since you can't test at infinity distance and it's hard to evaluate chromatic aberration correction with fluorescent lights that have a highly uneven spectrum. dllu (t,c) 17:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review @Colin: . I requested permission to use a tripod, however this was not accepted. This was a small and very busy pharmacy. I take 42 photographs with my technique of shooting without breathing. It was the main shelf and there were a lot of people so I had to stay there until people got out of the way. This type of ridiculously monotonous simple and excessively ordered photos is the classic example of my favorite FP style. I think that in many users here we are compulsively ordered and we focus on collecting things to fill our social gaps, this kind of apparently harmless but exaggerated order. --The Photographer 23:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't think a tripod was needed here. According to the EXIF, you shot at 1/250s at 35mm (equivalent to 50mm on full frame). So two stops down would be f/3.5 which you could have hand-held (especially if taking several shots to be sure) at 1/60s. I like your ordered photos, and it is not easy to get such a scene exactly straight hand-held. I'm finding the new "guided adjustment" tool in Lightroom to be very helpful and faster than manually moving the sliders and judging by eye. Btw, dllu, most test charts don't test anywhere near infinity, which is a problem for all but a portrait lens. The folk at Lens Rentals test at infinity, and always wide open, which I think is a bit daft -- it over emphasises the problems between lenses (which is why they do it in their repair shop) but doesn't really tell you how the lens performs at normal apertures, and testing a macro lens at infinity is just silly. There's no perfect system, but a retail test chart could be more fun! -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this better than the other shop image. Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting scene? This? ...nothing of Interesting for me. (No wow) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Livioandronico. And this is surely not "food and drink" --A.Savin 12:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love patterns and I'm a big fan of The Photographer's work but I am not terribly impressed by this. Compared to File:Convenience Store Shelf, Tokyo 2014.jpg, the colours, framing, and white balance of this picture are much better. However, the individual labels are quite homogeneous and boring. All the "Medicamento Generico" labels are the same, unlike the Tokyo grocery store where each label has different artwork. dllu (t,c) 17:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically faultlessly. But it is too monotonous. Sorry --KSK (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 17:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 18:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Agriocnemis falcifera 2017 10 22 1465.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2017 at 19:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info The white-masked whisp Agriocnemis falcifera is a small (25 mm long) damselfly that has only been recorded in South Africa. This is an immature male. All by Alandmanson (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This species is not endemic to South Africa. I think you mean Southern Africa. Charles (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK then; how about "has only been recorded in South Africa"? See http://www.zoology.uct.ac.za/index.php?taxon_id=24100 --Alandmanson (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, that's fine. Looking at the map of records, it would seem very likely to be found in Lesotho and/or Swaziland. Charles (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We've seen clearer pictures of dragonflies, but this is clear enough and the composition is very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coca Cola - Mexican death sentence.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 23:31:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's a striking image, but I feel like we need more information about what we're looking at. Where did you see this? Is it an artwork? Etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan Kekek, the photograph was taken in a stand that is part of the Alfeñique fair, sugar made figures (and other materials), day of the dead related traditions in Mexico. The fair, or street stands, set up every year. Taken in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks. Could you please add that information to your file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you. I might wish the depth of a field was a bit deeper, but I find this a compelling picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ¡Las bebidas azucaradas matan! --Basotxerri (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wowing and original Poc o² 12:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Poco. LOL --A.Savin 12:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder what Coca-Cola thinks about the ad... ;) Yann (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I think that Coca Cola thinks it is ok to produce and promote a product that has caused a huge health crisis in the world. There is large evidence of that and the problem has been studied and published widely, this being just one example of many #REDIRECT[[2]]. This is all done of course in the name of free enterprise and corporate profits. This is a proven public health problem, and I wonder why governments are not as action prone as they are with other drugs that science has shown to be relatively harmless. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support If not under some license i support. --Mile (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I prefer Pepsi --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hommage a Picasso.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2017 at 04:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Antonio Tàpies - uploaded by Pinkbigmacmedia - nominated by Prismo345 -- | Prismo (talk. · contr.) 04:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- | Prismo (talk. · contr.) 04:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this image will not become FP and IMO not QI too. The resolution is very small, it's too bright, needs perspective correction, is oversharpened and details missing. EXIF data is missing and it looks like a snapshot made with a smartphone. The composition does not work, the background is busy, the fountain/border is cropped. --XRay ^talk 05:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Damn!!! | Prismo (talk. | contr.) 21:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? The next image will become better. --XRay ^talk 14:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prismo345, you can get some tips about what things to fix before nominating a photo at FPC on this help page. --cart-Talk 14:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per XRay. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also think it's a smartphone snapshot - there's no focus in the picture distinguishing for- and background. Other aspects of bad quality have already been mentioned. --Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For all the reasons mentioned above. I can see what the photographer might have been hoping for, but this angle and the smartphone camera don't work for it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosque Church in Pécs.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2017 at 15:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - The monument on the square is pretty interesting. Should the category for that monument also be included, if there is any (and if there isn't any, should a category for the monument be created)? This is an interesting picture, but I wish there were a little more room above the monument. No vote yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added category Holy Trinity column in Pécs :) --Pudelek (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is strange, with the monument and church side by side, almost adjacent to each other. Also a little bit too much on the bottom relative to the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the composition too much; at least there's a balance to it. It could be improved, but this nomination passes the bar for me -- Thennicke (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good composition, per King. --Karelj (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ugandan defassa waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus defassa) juvenile male.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 15:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alandmanson (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are these ticks on the snout? BTW, I'm wondering if a less centred crop would result better. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

warts I think. The eyes are positioned as per rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a little reluctance. The picture is a little blurry despite the very short exposure time, probably due to the zoom lens. But you can still see that the poor beast has a lot of ticks around its nose. --Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this animal seriously ill due to ticks or is it completely normal? --The Photographer 23:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely healthy. These are likely common warts - definitely not ticks - and will probably fall off as the animal matures. Charles (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child, I used to spend my free time removing the ticks of goats, dogs, and various animals that were in the yard of my house. Some ticks that were too big or too attached to the skin exploded and it was common for the animal to end up bathed in blood. The surface of the tick has a particular greyish gray color, and they can remain alive for a long time hidden until a new animal comes close. Some ticks grow like clusters of fruit in numbers of hundreds impossible to kill. In this case I would have sworn that they were ticks because of their appearance, thanks for the clarification. --The Photographer 18:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2013.05.18.-19-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Vierfleck-Maennchen-2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2017 at 20:30:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes.--Peulle (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why would we want to promote another image of this insect taken on the same day, when this one is not as good as your very nice existing FP? Charles (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I rather do like it, but Charles has a point. Let's see what other people think. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The wings are clearer in this picture. For that reason, I think this is a worthy FP, regardless of other bases of comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I increased exposure on the animal manualy, and its much better. I can support similar one. --Mile (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) p.S. And if you remove grass on right side would be even better.[reply]

Info New version. It was a bit dark indeed. I'm careful with strong brightness in photos because mostly it attends lost details. --Hockei (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, you enlighted all photo, not just selection. Probably RawTh. cant do that, Adobe PS can. --Mile (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made a new version because I wasn't satisfied with the last one myself. What I see of Miles version is, that PS can very good people misguide to make unnatural pictures with strong colour mistakes. I don't mind if Mile or anyone else support my picture or not. I decided this is my last nomination of a picture of me and to leave the FPC kindergarten. There are to much envy, dishonesty, maybe collusions and meanness which have effects on votes. It's a pity about the lost time. --Hockei (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tabanus atratus, U, Face, MD 2013-08-21-16.06.31 ZS PMax (9599360121).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2017 at 01:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info Head of horsefly. Nominated by Drewmutt -- Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the form of the nomination IMO is not proper, because you haven't indicated who photographed it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background, crop --Mile (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop, part of the thorax cut off --Llez (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support It is a tight crop, yes, but it doesn't really bother me in this instance. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop unfortunately. Charles (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tight crop helps the viewer focus on the essential information in the picture. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frank Schulenburg: What do you think is the picture's essential information?
Support I don't like the crop but the image is otherwise so nice that I think it should be an FP -- Thennicke (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
rather Oppose than support, although it's a difficult desicion. The crop is one thing, in this case it really ruins the overall impression. But when zooming into the picture I have the impression that something is weird about it. Extreme manipulation perhaps? Also, per Ikan Kekek (nomination isn't proper). And additionally the meta data is missing important information about camera, lens, aperture, and focal dimensions. --Prozentzwanzig (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eier und frisch geschlüpfte Insekten.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 11:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Prozentzwanzig - uploaded by Prozentzwanzig - nominated by Prozentzwanzig -- Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A potentially valuable image, but it is quite small and there is not so much definition. The background is not natural. Also there are other problems. The species is not identified and these are nymphs, not imago. Charles (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. An FP of this motif would be very sharp. Too bad, because it's pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prozentzwanzig, please add a category above. Yann (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. The slight shadow on the right side of the grass suggests that it might have been placed on a white surface and in such case, it should be no problem getting everything sharp as opposed to shooting it in its natural state where wind and light are always problematic. Did you pick the grass/leaf with the insects and take it somewhere to make this photo, or am I wrong about this? --cart-Talk 14:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herfstwandeling door het Wijnjeterper Schar 13.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2017 at 05:07:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Hiking in autumn by Wijnjeterper Schar. Birch trees in autumn colors. A simple picture of a birch forest. But by the light and the beautiful autumn colors is special for me. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photos of natural forests are rare, because they are so complex - I like the way that complexity comes through in this image. --Alandmanson (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alandmanson's points, which are excellently stated. I like the light, the color, the form and rhythm and the depth of field. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I find the scenery too ordinary --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1. --Karelj (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lauchbluete-korrekt.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 11:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The blossom of garden leek. Allium ampeloprasum var. porrum

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Prozentzwanzig - uploaded by Prozentzwanzig - nominated by Prozentzwanzig -- Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No depth of field and blurred insect. Also, you should provide binomial name of plant and appropriate categories. Have a look and see what others do. Charles (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Binomial name added, thanks for the hint. Depth of field is there (have a close look), the insect isn't part of the picture's essencial information. --Prozentzwanzig (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand about the insect, but better to wait then until it has gone. Charles (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casa Pashkov, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 36-37 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 18:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Night view of the Pashkov house, Moscow, Russia. The palace, of neoclassical style, was erected in 1784-1786 by Pyotr Pashkov, a Muscovite nobleman and pressumably designed by Vasili Bazhenov. Today it is owned by the Russian State Library. All by me, Poc o² 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another fine shot by the Poco.--Peulle (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KSK (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good Charles (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours are outstanding. Streetlight is bothersome but you're not in control of that -- Thennicke (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christianshavn metro station October 2017 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 14:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Christianshavn metro station in Copenhagen, Denmark. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I like the idea, and you did manage under what I suppose were difficult conditions to get something like what I imagine you wanted, but the results are just too noisy and rough for FP IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graue_Fleischfliege_Sarcophaga_carnaria.jpg, featured, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2017 at 13:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info created by Aczap - uploaded by Aczap - nominated by -- Aczap (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aczap (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Get a room ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can you please have another look @Daniel Case, Frank Schulenburg, and Johann Jaritz: . Nice VI, but not FP. The female is completely out of focus and the leaf obscures some of her. Charles (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have featured some hardcore insect pr0n of this same species; I suppose something more softcore would work, too (insect er0tica?). Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles, not much is in focus. --Mile (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is lots of wow for me here. I agree that technically it could have been mastered better but as I don't know of any other FP with this subject, I consider it deserving of the award of one of our finest. Poc o² 12:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive enough to compensate the shallow focus. --Selbymay (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ I like this hidden view very much. --Paul de Bolger (talk)]]) 23:03, 1 November 2017

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your third edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 09:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Halloween Sundog.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2017 at 11:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Happened to see this rainbow sun dog today and did some experimenting with the camera. This dark version seemed appropriate for this day. Happy Halloween to all of you! -- cart-Talk 11:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 11:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New improved version uploaded now that I could access Lightroom. (The first was just a jpeg from camera.) Please go to file's page and refresh your cache. Am I the only one who think the template transcriptions here on FPC is veeery slow most of the time? It usually takes hours before I can see the latest version of a nomination page here in the list. --cart-Talk 17:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, Carter. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Greeting done. ;) --cart-Talk 09:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Варница во Брезово.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 12:03:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but why this picture should be featured? Probably, I may not be able to appreciate it. --Harlock81 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lime pits usually do not have any supporting constructions around and this one is really an exception found mostly in the region where the image was taken.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow.--Peulle (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure if others noticed it. The left side of the house is blurred due to shake especially the wood part. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The building is striking, but the background clashes with it too much. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:National bird wondering near Kerandi River in simliguda of Koraput at the time of Twilight.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2017 at 12:23:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Shiv's fotografia - uploaded by Shiv's fotografia - nominated by Pavan santhosh.s -- Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's nothing featurable about this photo, but how is the voting period over right away? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies Ikan Kekek! I don't know the process and couldn't add in list till now. Just learnt that we need to add it in candidates list. I'm new to this process in commons. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per Ikan. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Os lencois.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2017 at 12:40:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Joao lara mesquita - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool. I mean hot. No, wait, I'm confused ... ;) --Peulle (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. And I love that there are people in the photo, as they help to emphasize the vast scale of the dunes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful shot. hopefully it does not turn into an advertisement for a bottled water company :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Groovy! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support most impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not to be a killjoy here, but it looks like this image was uploaded to this website about a year before it was uploaded here. The website's owner and the uploader's username are consistent, but shouldn't this be something for OTRS? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aczap (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Vittoria Randonneur tire (trekking bicycle).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2017 at 12:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Something for bicyclers - Vittoria Randonneur tire (new tire for trekking bicycle; 700×35c). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your shot, but it is my bicycle. --Claus 14:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a wheel....and not entire...mah --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this picture oddly soothing. The background is so nice. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has that certain something that I can't put my finger on ... and I like the green/white background scheme.--Peulle (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extraordinary Poc o² 13:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do believe that it has some extraordinary: besides the symmetry and the sharpness, I really like how the wheel divides the background which has nice colours, too. And I wish that the parts of my bike would be so clean. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Certainly a well-taken picture, but I really don't find the composition interesting enough to support a feature. I could see it as part of a show that could be interesting, though, depending on what other photos were in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing extraordinary except the photo itself... --Laitche (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. --Karelj (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --KSK (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco.--Ermell (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 17:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 14:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ansberg Veitskapelle 1060027-PSD.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2017 at 16:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info nominated by me -- Ermell (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ich vermute mal, der ausgelöste Blitz war Absicht? --Ralf Roleček 17:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ich hab da nicht geblitzt. Keine Ahnung wie das in die Metadaten kommt. Bei der zur Verfügung stehenden Lichtmenge wäre das wohl auch übertrieben gewesen.--Ermell (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The leafless trees seem to be embracing the church, thereby - for me, at least - making this image a combination of the snowy cold and the emotionally warm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wonderful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep! The snow is perfect -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Aczap (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 32nd edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. --Laitche (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bamberg Naturkundemuseum Vogelsaal 926449506HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2017 at 21:03:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light! "The Flying Dead"; the little known sequel to "The Walking Dead". :) --cart-Talk 21:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is good but the processing is too much for me.--Peulle (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what kind of processing do you mean.--Ermell (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to call it; the birds don't look real. There's definitely something off about this; the detail is washed out.--Peulle (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a lot of sharpening and denoising, which has produced some artifacts. I wonder if the Olympus sensor shift thing has also introduced some artifacts. dllu (t,c) 00:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The bird in the front has a noticable sharpening halo, and yes the denoising is very heavy -- Thennicke (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Thirded, though it actually looks like noise to me, and it's particularly apparent in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Excellent composition and good overall quality. The pixelpeeping is getting really ridiculous here. Guys, please look at the picture, not at the pixels! --Code (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's worth at least noting pixel-level issues so that the author is aware of them. I agree that pixel peeping is an unhelpful standard off which to base a vote though -- Thennicke (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys not only support the photo but also think it's illegitimate to compare this to the supremely detailed, fantastic interiors that we've advanced to FP and find it not outstanding enough for FP on that basis? And even though it looks like this photo is set to be voted in as an FP with only a couple of opposing votes, that's terrible? Of course the composition is good and the picture is a very good effort; these things are not in question. But I think it's legitimate for me to find the lack of clarity in the details, especially in the foreground, disappointing, relative to existing FPs of interiors that are truly magnificent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are always better pictures. We can't expect every interior to be stitched. There are few contributors who are able to create Diliff-style pictures, most of our fellow contributors here are not able to. We shouldn't compare every interior with those of Diliff or others. This picture here is still among our finest. --Code (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, my vote is based off the fact that I find the image beautiful. The quality could be better but this image still looks nice at fullscreen on my 2K monitor, so I am not bothered too much by the pixel-level issues - though they do come into my consideration -- Thennicke (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and don't contest your reasoning. That wasn't the import of my comment above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is that unlike a QI, this can be replaced if a better version appears.--Peulle (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but it tends to happen very sparingly, and only when it's very obvious. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. There are definitely artefacts, but they are not particularly egregious given the 56 MP resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell maybe to say to other its Hi-Res shot (one single shot), not stitched etc... in that case its more supportable. --Mile (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:01-พระที่นั่งคูหาคฤหาสน์.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2017 at 10:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Royal pavilion in Phraya Nakhon Cave in Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Thailand
Info created and uploaded by BerryJ - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 10:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The results for WLM 2017 are comming in, and this one stopped me in my tracks. When you see an astonishing photo at WLM, you are very often a bit dissapointed when you open the file big and see the quality. This time I was pleasantly surprised. -- cart-Talk 10:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. Charles (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, I was also amazed by this scene when I saw it Poc o² 11:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can think of ways to improve it compositionally, but what a lovely scene -- Thennicke (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find, cart! Looks like it should be an establishing shot in a movie ... I can easily imagine seeing Indiana Jones' face next. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 13:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - piling on. lovely image. Note, though, that there looks to be some purplish fringing going on in the very bottom-right. Not enough to oppose (and very fixable). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ Wonderful --Aczap (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 29th edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 13:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Airbus A350-941 F-WWCF MSN002 ILA Berlin 2016 23.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2017 at 05:12:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Airliners
Info created and uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this detail of the landing gear and engine - it gives me a sense of the sheer weight of the aircraft, looking at the wing sagging and the tires bloating. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good compo-crop. --Mile (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thank you! — Julian H.^✈ 08:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shiny. :) --Peulle (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clean, bright and excellent compo. Brings to mind a time when airplanes were just progress and no one had heard of the enviromental problems they would cause. --cart-Talk 10:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I was dubious because of the cropped wing. But that's not really the subject of the picture. The engine and landing gear are, and since we so rarely get this kind of view there is wow, especially when you look at it more closely. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing extraordinary except the photo itself --Laitche (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At a glance, though it seemed like a pretty good image, I didn't understand the long list of supporters. The more I look at it, however, the more I appreciate the technical quality and composition. Nicely done. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing picture. The quality is great and the composition is fantastic. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /[--cart-Talk 18:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Airliners

File:Santorin (GR), Akrotiri -- 2017 -- 2478.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2017 at 04:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Yes, it's a sunset. A sunset is (nearly) always beautiful. But not every photograph of a sunset is beautiful. This photograph shows the setting sun behind the hill of Akrotiri in Santorini. The hill and the silhouette are particularly emphasized. --XRay ^talk 04:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is different from the usual sunset photo (And actually, I consider this a dusk, since the sun is not visible). Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like it, but I'd prefer if you cropped out more than half of the sky. I think that would produce a more satisfying form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good idea. I've seen the possible improvment some days agoo. But if I crop this image the way you proposed, the resolution would be too small. I should visit Santorini again ... --XRay ^talk 08:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should if you can. I've been enjoying a lot of your photos from there. I haven't decided which of the pictures of bells with long shadows is the best, but one of those might be an FP. They remind me somewhat of De Chirico. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 16.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 17:21:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The sandpath was still quite dark beneath the tall trees of the forest, but the sky was already shining through the rising sun, resulting in this clear reflection in the water pond. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a quite mundane snapshot, no wow effect at all, no artistic composition. Again, no focal plane distinguishing the picture's subject from its surroundings. --Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I like the idea and usually take similar shots myself, but the reflection itself seems a bit too random for me. Sorry. --cart-Talk 14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thank you for your comment. It was the only pond and the only reflection in the area. More choice I did not have.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, it's hard to find a pond exactly where you would get a nice reflection, such as a centered single tree, a bench, a telephone pole, a single cloud or something like that for a wow-factor. We should both keep looking. --cart-Talk 16:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Плафон в центральном холле.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 21:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Александр Скибицкий - uploaded by Александр Скибицкий - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure if it's really a part of Cultural Heritage, but the composition itself deserves a feature. --A.Savin 12:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, no reason for FP nomnation. --Karelj (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I like the composition, but IMO sharpness should be improved. And why f/2.8? A little bit more DoF should be better. --XRay ^talk 05:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Karelj --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not well centered --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not well centered -- -donald- (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santorin (GR), Akrotiri, Kastell -La Ponta- -- 2017 -- 2460-4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 05:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see anything FP in this. Charles (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. --Karelj (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I'll try a decision. Thanks for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 16:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azuki Beans.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 18:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by Sanjay ach -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Withdrawing this to make sure I am following the guidelines mentioned by Carter. Will re-nominate later. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gurk Pisweg Friedhof Karner Ost-Ansicht 31102017 1848.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 07:14:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
I withdraw my nomination created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination This image doesn`t evoke any interest in reviewers. So I better withdraw it. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Rooftop Old Billingsgate Market, 2017-10-27.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 21:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
Info The rooftop of Old Billingsgate Market. This was formerly the Billingsgate Fish Market, hence the fish details on the roof. The golden sunset lighting is also being enjoyed by some photographers on the roof of the neighbouring Northern & Shell building. (Two of them have cameras with what looks like the latest Zeiss lenses, and the other two are using their phones.) All by me -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support made me smile. Well captured --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the how the golden hour light brings out the oldness (for lack of a better word) of the stone. But the N&S building on the left is sort of distracting and leaves the image feeling sort of unbalanced to me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / loose composition. JukoFF (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferlach Bodental Märchenwiese 24102017 1745.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2017 at 09:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone might think that this is an ordinary image of trees, blue sky and white clouds. But I really like the result of this unusual crop! --Basotxerri (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you very much. Muchas gracias. What a friendly gesture of yours! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¡De nada, compañero! You're welcome! --Basotxerri (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Simpson like, maybe some wider crop would be still OK. --Mile (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Johann HalfGig talk 01:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture is obviously made with a fairly simple camera (smartphone perhaps) - no EXIF data is provided. It's missing a focal plane, the colours look to me like the picture has been manipulated or else it's been the smartphone's software. The crop is the result of the attempt to get something out of an otherwise uninteresting photo (sorry for being so direct, but I do know this from my own early photo attempts). Also, the description tells us "Bodental Märchenwiese" but the meadow is not in the picture at all. --Prozentzwanzig (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "Romance Meadow" is quite at the bottom, but the entire ambience (forest, mountains, etc.) belongs to the "Romance Meadow". Anyway, I took the photo from the "Romance Meadow". -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, Prozentzwanzig, the EXIF data shows that this is taken with a Nikon D810 so I guess that rules out your smartphone theory. Are you sure you are viewing this on a good screen and that your settings for Commons are correct? --cart-Talk 14:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Thank you, W. Carter. You explained it right. ;-) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the distortion of the narrowness of the crop -- Thennicke (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right. It became that narrow after editing the image. Unfortunately I did not have a wider angle available than 24mm. Otherwise the photo would have been wider. But I wanted to capture the entire cloud. It just worked, although I had to crop lots left and right. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not my cup of tea at all, but I can see EXIF data. Charles (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting use of the phone-style framing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / very much I do not understand voices of support. Incomprehensible photo, resembles a clipping from a large file ... JukoFF (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly the main cloud is cropped at the left --Llez (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Llez: Some more blue sky left of the main cloud now. Perhaps you see it with different eyes now? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can understand the idea but the result is not OK to me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catrinas and Catrines.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 01:05:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Catrinas are figures in Mexican culture that appear during Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico, inspired in the work of José Guadalupe Posada. #REDIRECT[[3]]-- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you the author of the figures? --The Photographer 02:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, they are figures for sale in a day of the dead market. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for your answer, the copyright situation is irrelevant in this nomination. --The Photographer 21:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that the guys are positioned to check out the ladies, it gives a dynamic to the picture. --cart-Talk 09:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your favorite thema at this time of the year !--Jebulon (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ --Aczap (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 28th edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Santorin (GR), Ia, Vier Glocken -- 2017 -- 2730-40.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 19:22:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 19:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 19:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is one in a series of striking images of this motif. I've been unsure which one is best, but as I'm presented with this one, I think it's striking enough to be a good featured picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Number 2 of your series appears much sharper to me... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination You're right. Sorry, I haven't seen this. So I'll nominate the other one. @Ikan Kekek, Tomascastelazo, and Johann Jaritz: Thanks for your reviews. I'll nominate the sharper one. My mistake. Sorry. --XRay ^talk 08:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 08:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferlach Bodental Märchenwiese 24102017 1736.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 09:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:Johann Jaritz - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you very much for your kindness of nominating another of my photos. ;-) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's my pleasure. I nominate your pictures because they are beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been seeing a lot of excellent alpine pictures on this site lately and plan on nominating more, but this one is special to me because of the brilliant backlighting of the evergreens in the foreground and middleground and the jagged snow on the mountain in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't resist a good backlight! :) --cart-Talk 09:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid nomination to my eyes - it's quite pretty and the composition is well-balanced -- Thennicke (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Knapweed fritillary (Melitaea phoebe) underside Bulgaria.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 12:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, though it does lack sharpness on the head, particulary the eyes. --Prozentzwanzig (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I may be wrong, but I feel like this photo is not up to the high standards that people like you and Jee have set. It's neither as sharp nor as well-lit as most of the really great lepidoptera FPs we've been passing. If the visible side of the butterfly had light on it that weren't dull, that might be enough to vote for this photo, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A symphony of earth tones. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moscow Narkomzem 1234.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 11:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Ludvig14 - uploaded by Ludvig14 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing color. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching errors (on wires, on the upper window, along vertical line below it (balconies)), chromatic aberrations. Sorry --A.Savin 15:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this is an insignificant flaw :) JukoFF (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What makes this a cultural monument? To my eyes as a New Yorker, it looks like a nondescript 1960s/70s residential (or it looks like, in this case, office) building. It looks like there's a halo on the electric wire that extends from this building to the one to the right of it. This is a good QI, but there's nothing in this picture that makes me go "Wow!" -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The building was built in the 1920s. :) This is a lively representative of the style of Soviet constructivism. JukoFF (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: To be fair, I have to say that it's a famous building by a very famous architect. It's featurable in itself, when there weren't all the stitching issues. Perhaps it's not a good idea to make a stitched image of it. Pixelpeeping? My opinion: better less megapixels, but accurate. --A.Savin 01:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Maybe this is a style that just doesn't appeal to me, but almost any building could be featurable if the photo is good enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A. Savin; also the sky is noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A. Savin. --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 22:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 BTS w Starej Morawie 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 23:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
InfoAll by -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition and juxtaposition of the artificial and the natural. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special and slightly tilted or leaning in --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an ordinary photo, nothing supernatural .... JukoFF (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a good photo - not outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Laitche (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I've to agree with the others. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Kamieniołom Kletno I w Kletnie 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 23:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you might have been thinking but it just isn't coming through. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In my opinion there is something wrong in terms of color and sharpness.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per/ D. Case JukoFF (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per D. Case. --Karelj (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Hamilton Custom House Collector's Room ceiling (40511s).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2017 at 21:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ceiling in the Collector's Office in the former U.S. Custom House in Manhattan. I was taken by this ceiling, designed by Tiffany Studios and incorporating some seaport/nautical themes, the first time I visited during Open House New York (an annual open-doors weekend/public architecture event). At the time, I had only a smartphone camera. This year, I went back determined to get a better shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Renominating this better version. Thanks to W.carter for the Lightroom sorcery. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having studied this roof a bit more thoroughly now, I'd say it is really an impressive piece of art/workmanship. --cart-Talk 21:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I could imagine an even sharper picture of this ceiling, but I'm satisfied with the amount of detail I can see, and I agree that it's quite a nice ceiling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rhododendrites i think it has a bit too much of red, i set -15 to -20 on red color, seems better. Check it. --Mile (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fruit Fly Pupa.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 22:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by Sanjay ach -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Large white border, could be cropped. Not that sharp as it is expected for FP. Try a macro series with focus stacking. -- -donald- (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per -donald-. --Peulle (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de San Basilio, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 05-06 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2017 at 12:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Night view of Saint Basil's Cathedral, Red Square in Moscow, Russia. The building, now a museum and a world-famous landmark, was built from 1555-61 on orders from Ivan the Terrible and commemorates the capture of Kazan and Astrakhan. Poc o² 12:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clearly. I wish my recent night shots were this good. --Peulle (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful, but I can't figure out why the spires look to me like they're going back as they go up, and is the tower furthest to the right slightly misshapen and perhaps compressed horizontally? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: I'm with Daniel here, the perspective will be different from different positions or with different lenses but I don't believe that the result here is deceiving and, actually, I didn't push it to the limit of the lens (16mm). Pleade consider that this is probably the most photographed subject in Russia an using e.g. a 50mm means being far from the subject which results in lots of people in the picture...Poc o² 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support distortion isn't too bad. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky noise. You are too close for doing PD, otherwise is not leaning to right side as shown. Cut tree on left side. Tight crop above. --Mile (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light seems slightly flat but all in all FP for me--Ermell (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pity for the crane on the left - maybe you could remove it? If not: stunning anyway! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basotxerri: the crane is gone! :) Poc o² 18:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muy bien, ¡buen trabajo! --Basotxerri (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me, the issues raised are rather minor relative to the great color and detail of the primary subject(s), which are lovely. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overlapping of memorial and church doesn't work for me. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 16:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Murgtalbahn Tennetschluchtbruecke Stadtbahn.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 23:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by MCMC - uploaded by MCMC - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice scene, but small and poor quality, especially compared to the nomination immediately below this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice scene indeed, but considering the not too high resolution, the image is not of high enough quality for me.--Peulle (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schotse Hooglander zoekt verkoeling in het water. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2017 at 06:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural# Netherlands Scottish Highlander
Info Scottish Highlander cools in water. Location, nature Delleboersterheide - Cats Poele, in the Netherlands. Scottish Highlanders are deployed in nature areas of the Netherlands for nature conservation. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moo! :) I really like how the cow is walking along the ditch, just barely popping its head up.--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition and good sharpness. Love this image. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muu..and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a bit yellow or it was the real circumstances? --The Photographer 23:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. The photograph is toward evening genomenmet mild light in August. then you sometimes get a warm color.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 16:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Onopordum illyricum near Holbrook NSW Australia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 02:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really low quality on the flower. Charles (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I agree - I don't even see how this one got past QIC.--Peulle (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the issue? Focus? F/5.6 was chosen for maximum bokeh, to separate the flower from the background. And in future please be more constructive - "low quality" doesn't help me improve my images -- Thennicke (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thennicke and Selbymay: Sorry if I didn't explain, but there are many problems which should not be present in an FP nomination. There is no definition: A 600mm lens is completely inappropriate for a shot of flower. There is poor DoF: F5.6 is inappropriate for a shot of flower. Processing: there appears to be extensive poor quality processing on the flower head. I also don't find the composition attractive - the balance is wrong for me and the cut-off stem is unattractive, but that isn't my reason for opposing. Charles (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me, the focus is off. Both flowers appear to be out of focus, the right one definitely so. As such, I feel it fails on technical quality.--Peulle (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Well I deliberately went for 600mm f/5.6 so as to maximise the separation of the plant from the background. Perhaps I should've done a focus stacking shot and these sharpness issues wouldn't be there. -- Thennicke (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice shot with a good emphasization of the plant. The sharpness seems good enough to me, for QI as for FP. --Selbymay (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image lacks quality. There is no sharpness. Also this does not seem to be a FP candidate. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praying Mantis laying eggs 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 15:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the mantis is all out of focus and the dark leaf has meant that decent lighting has not been achieved. Charles (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. This would have been a great capture if not for the quality. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Göltzschtalbrücke 0717-PSD.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 13:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not getting a great sense of scale (the largest brick-built bridge in the world) that I see with other photos take from (and including) ground level in the centre and/or that include a train passing over the bridge. Also the crop on the left and the vertical crop are not ideal -- it just feels we are only seeing part of the view. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. The crop is far too tight. Charles (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, but it's a gorgeous bridge and I hope to see it again on here! (if you do get another chance) -- Thennicke (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, I would prefer this one.--Christof46 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ermell (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barley Seeds.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2017 at 14:21:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by Sanjay ach -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really sharp larger-than-life closeup of barley. Impressive, and would also be a good VI candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Given its encyclopedic value, if it isn't promoted on Commons (or even if it is), it seems like a pretty safe bet it would be promoted on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though it's a little grainy ... . Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if there were a pun barnstar... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitively per Daniel! --Basotxerri (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to make the entire background white? The top is off-white and it doesn't look very nice on the page -- Thennicke (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- it’s difficult to remove the background and make it white as that will require a lot of precision work and even then no guarantee of uniformity. The reason being there is no simple border transition between the object and background. I will see if there is an easy way to do that. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like better a natural background. Yann (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HEV $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Shard at sunset 2017-10-27.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2017 at 21:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United Kingdom
Info The Shard at sunset. I was hoping to get the moon in the shot, but it was small and obscured by cloud at this point. I got a helicopter instead. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality isn't the best,especially the left side and the tip of the Pyramid. And the elicopter is diturbing. Besides, the composition seems to me as a random (half bridge for example.) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence above is simply not true. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- An opinion is an opinion.... for me is true for you not....Ok understood--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is possible LivioAndronico is pointing out that the top of the Shard is soft. Charles (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Charles if you look at the metalwork at the top (and tip) of the Shard, it is sharp. The lighting up there is unusual and very bright -- so there is glare from the lights just like there is glare around the streetlamps. It isn't low-intensity office lighting up there (compared with lower down), but super bright flood lights making it into a beacon. Anyway, wrt pixel peeping, this is what I'd regard as a "bold subject" not a "detailed subject", so I think pixel-level fussing of a 20+MP image is inappropriate. You don't get much bolder than a 300m glass pyramid in the centre of London. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand Colin; I didn't oppose. I was just trying to explain the reason for the oppose vote. Charles (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Charles --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is high enough for QI and there is sufficient "wow" factor in the lighting for me to support for FP.--Peulle (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle Poc o² 10:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow look at all those people in their little cubicles. I think the image could use a little more contrast, but that's a taste thing -- Thennicke (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I won't spoil the party by opposing since this is a very high quality photo where the intrigue of the scene lies in seeing everything going on in each window, giving it a wow-factor. But, I find the compo a bit unbalanced and I keep wanting to turn the camera to the left. The cut bridge and the buildings behind it has a different "texture" and color scheme than the rest of the photo, so it doesn't really tie in with the middle and left side of the pic. Have you tried cropping this to square (or near square) format with the Shard as a center piece instead? --cart-Talk 11:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, thanks for the comments. The nasty pointy thing is sometimes called "Shard London Bridge", sits above London Bridge station, and the collection of buildings in this area is called the London Bridge Quarter. So I wanted, for better or worse, to include London Bridge in the photo. You can just about make out the words "LONDON BRIDGE" on the pillar of the bridge in the shadows. I agree the sky above that area doesn't have the clouds and the sun is setting off to the right so that part of the sky is brighter. I thought it was quite nice to get the contrast of Southwark Cathedral with the geometric glass buildings. The bridge does form a leading line, though the picture would have to be an awful lot wider to get all of that bridge in since it crosses over close to my right side. I'd need closer to a 180° angle of view to follow it to the end. I tried the crop you suggested. It's a different photo that's not bad provided the Shard is off-centre a bit. Perhaps I will return and do a higher-resolution photo of that scene, to capture all the windows and little people. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Boring~~ Unattractive composition. --Laitche (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC) _{Sorry Colin "boring" was rude... --Laitche (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Friday Prayer at Baitul Mukarram Mosque 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2017 at 10:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Azim Khan Ronnie - nominated by Masum-al-hasan -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Subject we should have more FPs of, and great angle, but distortion and severe CA at the outer edges. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition, but technically, it fells short (CAs, corner unsharpness). --C messier (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because of the issues raised by Daniel, but the issues look fixable. Fixing the heavy purple fringing may be enough. Fixing distortion at the edges isn't something I know how to do myself, but it seems worth investigating. Even if this nomination isn't successful, you could fix them and renominate. I would be happy to support an improved version, as it's a good scene and good composition. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good POV and composition. --Selbymay (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Selbymay. In my opinion the quality could have been improved by using a larger f-stop and a tripod. But willing to accept this for the great composition. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose distortion, CA and the other issues marked above. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ciucaș Peak, Romania (Unsplash).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 03:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by David Marcu - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm impressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support True image. --Mile (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing light. --Laitche (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Laitche. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soft and hazy but an indredible scenery and beautiful light. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing lighting and scene, look like if god is there inviting her --The Photographer 23:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful!!! Love seeing this picture again and again. Very inspirational!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight,
To me did seem
Apparelled in celestial light ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) -- Thennicke (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply great. --Selbymay (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support breathtaking! - Benh (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 19:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aczap (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote again, trolling? --The Photographer 16:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this one is valid. User has just cleared the limit for days and edits so strike removed. Please don't assume trolling just because a user is new and don't know all the rules here. --cart-Talk 10:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support A real painting :) --Poc o² 18:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Québec city downtown.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 22:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info All by -- The Photographer 22:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that the cars are somewhat hidden, although it would be even better if they weren't there. Quite good light + processing IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has a certain "Norman Rockwell Stockbridge Main Street" quality to it. --cart-Talk 20:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like it could use a bit of perspective correction, though. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 14:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harris' Hawk (falconry, Canada).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2017 at 14:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created and uploaded by Peter K Burian - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfect pose is unfortunately noisy to the point of making the bird soft. (I am sorry....) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RaboKarbakian, though unhappily. If only the head were sharp, I would reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shame about the noise (and softness), but inevitable with ISO setting. Charles (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise --Mile (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asclepeion Epidaurus (2).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2017 at 07:55:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Greece
Info Part of the ruined temple to Asclepius at Epidaurus, seen from the southwest. All by me. --Peulle (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have been an lovely photo if that wall wasn't there. Having something in the foreground "blocking" the viewer from "entering" the photo is seldom a good idea. Had you stepped forward just a bit and maybe included some more sky, you would have got an airy pic with the clouds emulating the curve of the ruin. Not sure it can be saved just by cropping off the wall. --cart-Talk 11:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nah, cropping would just make the image look out of balance, I think. It's gotta be good enough as is, or not. Thanks for reviewing.--Peulle (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Per cart the wall is something you can't unsee. But I think the crop would work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give it a try. Stand by... --Peulle (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done What do we think?--Peulle (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bielsa - Camino Cinca 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2017 at 19:26:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this one because the shadow covers exactly the footway. However, maybe you'll find it a too common picture... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - At thumbnail size, I thought I'd indeed find it too ordinary, but no - it's beautiful, an excellent composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect timing, I would say. Good catch. --cart-Talk 10:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've taken some like this but none this good. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not "too common" at all.--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Monasterio de São Bento, São Paulo, Brazil 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 23:56:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Brazil
Info All by -- The Photographer 23:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird colors and some posterization on the floor; also the cropped lights. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:RAI EMD GT26CW-2 Garmsar.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 22:01:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Iran
Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The daily local train from Tehran to Sari follows the Hablehrood river through the gorge from Garmsar to Firooz Kooh, Iran.
Comment Stitched from six photos.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. Wow, there is. --Yann (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, look at that geology! And that canal! I'd love to take that train sometime -- Thennicke (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The ramp down to the caspian sea is absolutely awesome, too! (actually I'd go from Sari to Tehran to fully enjoy the 170 liter 16-cylinder engine of the GT26's on the uphill ramp, ehrm nerdgasm, sorry) I'll upload some more photos later. --Kabelleger (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support just wow... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --Cayambe (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --cart-Talk 08:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top quality.--Ermell (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive work, congrats _{(just a very very small error in the sky - top border - I put a note if you may correct it).} --Selbymay (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, I've uploaded a new version with this stitching error fixed and some faint dust spots and other irregularities removed from the sky. --Kabelleger (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perfect. --Selbymay (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --anjaz (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santorin (GR), Fira, Drei Glocken von Fira -- 2017 -- 2587.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2017 at 13:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 13:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info BTW: The cross is tilted. In reality. --XRay ^talk 13:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 13:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different with a very common subject of/in Santorini.--Jebulon (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ --Aczap (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 27th edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Augustusburg, Western Facade, November 2017.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2017 at 20:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info The western facade of Schloss Augustusburg. The Augustusburg and Falkenlust Palaces form a historical building complex in Brühl, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, which has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1984. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As said in QIC, I think the sides are leaning out a bit. Small correction should be possible.--Peulle (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, Peulle --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well done, excellent light. Was that done with a single photo or focus-stacked? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a single shot... uwa and stopping down results in sufficient dof, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does uwa stand for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ultra wide angle :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks inviting.--Ermell (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stark. --cart-Talk 10:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too soft (see grass) --A.Savin 13:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, Alexander. I've - very carefully - sharpened the image a tiny bit. It should be better now, although I couldn't recognize much of an issue here before... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably lost, but you can send me the CR2 if you want. --A.Savin 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good Composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support The symetry that is almost but not quite too much. ~~But the over-processed grass is just sad.~~ --RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bottom piece cut maybe.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Peulle, Tomascastelazo, Johann Jaritz, Ikan Kekek, Ermell, cart, A.Savin, LivioAndronico, RaboKarbakian, Daniel Case: Following Famberhorst's advice, I've cropped the lower part of the lawn. This - imo - significantly improved the image as I got rid of ugly grass patches and could create a more pleasant side ratio. If you disagree I'll revert of course. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't mind the grass patches, and to me, this is a slight improvement, but I think people could disagree about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no problem with it.--Peulle (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks overprocessed, especially the grass, but also the building --Llez (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An unfavorable time for taking a FP. The construction fences are very disturbing.--Milseburg (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llez and Milseburg. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sorry for bothering you again, Peulle, Tomascastelazo, Johann Jaritz, Ikan Kekek, Ermell, cart, A.Savin, LivioAndronico, RaboKarbakian, Daniel Case, Famberhorst, Llez, HalfGig, Milseburg, kaʁstn: In order to address some of the issues mentioned above, such as the overprocessing of parts of the image, I've redeveloped the raw from scratch. The pic should be smoother now. Aside from that the image is pretty much as it was before, except that it's a bit wider, underlining its panoramic character. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really no idea what exactly are you doing with the raw data, but the sharpness level isn't any better than previously. My offer with the raw file is still standing. --A.Savin 00:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I preferred the previous version marginally, but not enough to change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others opponets. --Karelj (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Спиковски Водопад во Равна Река 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2017 at 07:59:00 (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) 07:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes a small waterfall can be magical. And out of season. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What a beautiful scene! I'd like to vote for a feature, but the overexposed sky and trees give me pause. Petrovskyz, would you like to dial back the highlights in the upper part of the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sadtly Ikan Kekek that is the furthest they can be recovered. It was quite challenging to get everything properly exposed, so it was either the sky blown a bit, or the detail in the waterfall lost. Had to make a choice on the spot. Petrovskyz (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to dial back the highlights only in that one area of the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan: I guess that Petrovskyz refers to the moment he captured the scene, a HDR could have helped here with such a wide dynamic range. Poc o² 21:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to bring up and additional problem: in this kind of images I do consider important that water flows vertical, due to the lack of perspective distortion the water flows are tilted (both sides are leaning in), that's pretty disturbing. Poc o² 21:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:20170902 Koenigslutter Kaiserdom DSC05568 PtrQs.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 08:41:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by User:PtrQs - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I nominate this photo for your consideration because I find this ceiling beautiful and unique, and I think the sharpness is sufficient, considering the size of the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not often a church ceiling just makes you smile, but this with all its curvy lines and bulbous shapes in primary colors brings to mind a sort of bouncing castle. --cart-Talk 13:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm torn on whether or not I like the imbalance of the three major sections. My initial reaction is to wish there were either more on the left in view or even that it were a couple separate images, but at the same time it's all so colorful and crisp that I rather enjoy getting it all at once. Support either way, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of cause the square of the sanctuary longs to be centered, but restricted by my 24mm lens this was the only way to show more than the sanctuary without cutting the colorful Christ Pancrator on the right. But I'm glad you like it nonetheless. --PtrQs (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rotation --Mile (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - In which direction would you like User:PtrQs to rotate the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To portrait mode, of course (90° CW). But now i saw this shot, less chance to do that. Its not just better, but more suitable for article too. --Mile (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's better; rather, I find the photo I nominated richer in the variety of frescos it presents. Sure, the other photo is more useful for an article about Christ Pantocrator, but that's not the only reason for featuring a photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without mandatory reason for a special orientation for such stretched pictures I choose landscape as it allows the maximal use on the screen. In portrait mode you could see the full image only in a very small view (Just open the image in full view and press Ctrl-Alt-RightButton! Panic mode off: You can undo this by pressing Ctrl-Alt-UpButton ) --PtrQs (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mile, because it seems to be, based on my own reactions to images, that left-right symmetry is far more important than top-bottom symmetry in a photograph -- Thennicke (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 15.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 05:58:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago Lungo (2553m) in the mountains of Stelvio National Park, Italy. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Related to File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpg, which is already an FP, so I could understand if some of you might feel that both these pictures can't be FPs, but I think the compositions are significantly different and both deserve the star. The only real drawback that I see in this photo is the close crop above the highest rock. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too similar to the other one, which is better. Yann (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Yann.--Peulle (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Similar to what? boh....nice! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Yann and Peulle.--Jebulon (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is nice but in my opinion lacks sharpness. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others opponents. --Karelj (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gurk Pisweg Friedhof mit Pfarrkirche hl Lambert und Karner SW-Ansicht 31102017 1831.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 07:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Weak dust spot on the left side of the tower.--Ermell (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Ermell: Dustspot has been removed. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image of a truly timeless church . Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry to dissent, but the sky and grass take up a lot of the picture frame and neither is interesting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MJK50197 Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 18:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#United_States
Info created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Martin Kraft -- Martin K. (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin K. (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support just perfect.--Ermell (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful.--Peulle (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. I think it is great to shoot this from a high point of view, because then the vertical angle-of-view does not need to be as extreme as when shooting from ground level. But the vertical angle-of-view is my problem with the image, and one I have opposed a few of Diliff's images for. I think there is a real temptation to use the whole view and to not crop anything (Was this image taken from a single wide-angle shot, or stitched from a few? The relatively low resolution (for such images) suggests it is just a single shot). I can appreciate the desire to keep the window arches at the side and not crop the central arch. But the result is perspective distortion that causes the painting in the middle of the near-centre arch to appear to face the viewer. One then gets the impression that this arch is not facing the ground but in fact tilted 45°. It is also unfortunate that, for me anyway, it is this painting that first catches my attention, like a big Cyclops eye in the middle. If the picture is cropped vertically where the white-painted diagonal woodwork would meet the corner of the frame then I think the image is improved. The aspect ratio becomes a more normal one for human vision; we still keep all of the second side window; the cropping of the ceiling actually gives the effect of this pattern repeating onwards above one's head; and because each arch repeats the same pattern, we aren't losing anything vital by cropping it. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that WLM-US is done, I can add my support for this. This was one of the strongest images we had (I would be OK with Colin's suggested crops); I was a little surprised that it did not get enough support from other jurors to be a finalist. I am thus glad to see it here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't name names, but the judging of WLE and WLM is often disappointing, in my humble opinion. I wish that panels consisted of FPC reviewers, or at least had the sort of critical eyes that we cultivate here. I don't know about the circumstances of WLM-US when I say that, but the sentiment is general -- Thennicke (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ --Aczap (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 25th edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 13:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's very hard to get light that is perfect for every part of a church interior - for example, I wish the paintings on and near the ceiling were clearer - but I feel like enough went right for this to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 02:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Try vio-violet a new Lundborg perfume (2015646922).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 16:07:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Louis Rhead - uploaded by Moheen Reeyad - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Could be digitally restored, but in very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 02:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turnau Göriacher Alm Kreuz 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 15:46:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Styria
Info Wayside cross at the alpine pasture Göriacher Alm near Turnau, Styria, Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but this is one I love --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too empty overall, both the sky and the grass below. There's only one strip of interesting elements in the composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. While a crop might address some of the compositional issues he identifies, it would do nothing about the overall softness of the image, so I haven't bothered to add a proposal for one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дом-музей художника Н.Н. Хохрякова зимой.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2017 at 13:44:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
Info created and uploaded by Ele-chudinovsk - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful scenario. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's nice and all, but I just can't get past that door being cut off the way it is.--Peulle (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well-captured winter scene that manages to be a uniquely Russian winter scene. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle and lacks quality --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 15:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea, but not sharp enough and the bottom crop is far too tight. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Great motif, but I oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 02:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fokker Dr.I D-EFTJ OTT 2013 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2017 at 04:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created and uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be even more spectacular after turning around. --Ermell (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty good quality but not enough for an FP in my book. The resolution is fairly low, the highlights are bright and the angle does little to give me any sense of "wow".--Peulle (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it seems overexposed, specially the sky may be burnt 22:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezarate (talk • contribs)
~~Oppose~~ per others. I don't love the glare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'd like to think that I have learned something in terms of photo editing since then, so I gave it an update. I'd like to hear what your opinion is on that. @Ezarate: The exposure is increased by about a stop, so the sky is definitely not burnt, just not very interesting. Pinging Thennicke as well. — Julian H.^✈ 06:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ to Neutral For others --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Shame about the glare because done right, I think this could have been really striking. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: What exactly are you referring with "glare"? I undestand this as some artifact which reduces the contrast due to backlighting, but I can't see that here. — Julian H.^✈ 05:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Julian Herzog: The light reflecting off the wings and body. Ikan called it that as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Ah, thanks for the clarification. I was just wondering because that seems like a regular reflection to me. — Julian H.^✈ 19:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a pity that the image is too bright. Otherwise it were very good and „wow“ for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I gave it one last significant processing overhaul and reduced the glare and overall brightness further. CC: Thennicke, Martin Falbisoner, Ermell, Peulle, Ikan Kekek, Ezarate, LivioAndronico, Lothar Spurzem and Daniel Case. — Julian H.^✈ 05:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's much improved to my eyes. I'm still not sure about supporting (so far, I'm not feeling wowed), but I crossed out my oppose vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Julian Herzog: In all honesty, what I loved about this image was its original processing, with that strong sense of reflection, and the associated contrast (I think you do an amazing job with your postprocessing). It seems other reviewers aren't so fond of that though, so it might be better for me to just end the nomination - though you've put a lot of work into this. What do you think? -- Thennicke (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I think it is disappointing that people are in opposition to an image because of reflected light; something that is perfectly natural and in my opinion also beautiful. It's just shiny paint, and nothing was overexposed. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that I didn't support this one yet, as I'm not entirely convinced that the quality deserves FP status. So I'm ok with giving up on it. At this point, it really is unlikely to succeed. I also don't mind putting some work into an old photo if it makes it better, and to support a nomination that I appreciate. — Julian H.^✈ 06:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; in that case I will end the nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santorin (GR), Ia, Vier Glocken -- 2017 -- 2720-6-2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2017 at 08:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info This nomination is a replacement of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santorin (GR), Ia, Vier Glocken -- 2017 -- 2730-40.jpg. This photograph is a little bit sharper. @Ikan Kekek, Tomascastelazo, Johann Jaritz, and Martin Falbisoner: Thanks for your reviews of the former nomination. --XRay ^talk 08:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Selbymay (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice cool factor provided by the shadows.--Peulle (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. --Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Life in green " Pond Herons".jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 04:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Shiv's fotografia - uploaded by Shiv's fotografia - nominated by Pavan santhosh.s -- Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pranayraj1985 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A beautiful thumbnail because of all the greenery, but the bird is super-unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose In a few words: Unsharp, oversaturated, description missing. Sorry, these kind of images can't be FP - and not QI. --XRay ^talk 06:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with XRay. Composition seems nice but needs improvement on technicalities. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bird is very unsharp. --Cayambe (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parish church St. Ulrich - Urtijëi - Church pew.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2017 at 21:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing in the picture that makes it a candidate for FP. The Church Pew also is cut. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Sanjay. Daniel Case (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pew, but Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dark purple Trichoglottis (70213s)c.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2017 at 04:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dark purple Trichoglottis orchid at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden. Focus stacked. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might be nice if cropped in to just the flowers, but then it would be too small in all probability. As it is, though, there's just too much going on in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally I think this is a nice image, and the background doesn't distract me. I would've taken the photograph in the same way. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background. Yann (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is very distracting. Sorry!!! The background needs more blurring in my opinion. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I tried to play with the background a bit and will upload another version. Will ping commenters here to see if it's worth renominating. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museo Estatal de Historia, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 46-47 HDR.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2017 at 18:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Night view of the northwest side of the neo-Russian style State Historical Museum of Russia heading to the Manege Square (the opposite side faces the Red Square) in Moscow, Russia. Its exhibitions range from relics of prehistoric tribes that lived on the territory of present-day Russia. The museum was founded in 1872 by Ivan Zabelin, Aleksey Uvarov and several other Slavophiles interested in promoting Russian history and national self-awareness and is a work of Vladimir Osipovich Shervud. In front of the museum is located Vyacheslav Klykov's equestrian statue of Marshal Zhukov, unveiled in 1995 to mark the 50th anniversary of the Moscow Victory Parade, when the Soviet commander had spectacularly ridden a white stallion through Red Square and Manege Square. All by me, Poc o² 18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find the big blown lamp really distracting. I'd support cropping out that entire area. Then, I might well support. Now, I don't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: I can surely do that (I'd offer an alt), just would like to hear at least a second opinion. Poc o² 21:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --Karelj (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the brown sky is just too awful, sorry. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 20:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:India - Kolkata bamboo scaffolding - 3574.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 02:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Jorge Royan - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like everything about this apart from the fact that the man's eyes are not open. That makes it rather odd and unsatisfying. He really should be clearly looking at that bucket. So, the "decisive moment" was not caught here. -- Colin (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, the more I look at it the more I agree with this critique actually. I'm going to withdraw this one and nominate another, because Jorge Royan's galleries have plenty of other similar images without such problems, which are probably more suitable to feature. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, what Colin says is true, but still, I find it very original, a good composition (if possible I'd have captured more on the top, but whatever) overall and acceptable quality Poc o² 19:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry to the supporters, but I've changed my mind about this picture; I will nominate others from Jorge's 2005 India trip though -- Thennicke (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of Saint Donatus, Zadar - September 2017 -2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 12:19:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Croatia
Info The Church of St. Donatus, Zadar, Croatia. I really like the vivid, stark contrast created by the bright, early medieval building of the church and the deep blue sky in the background (that I didn't oversaturate); all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 15:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --Karelj (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow enough for me. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Neutral wow for me. Also just neutral all around. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, interesting building, but nothing special enough. --Yann (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination maybe you're right. Thanks --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rings of time Information Age (Digital Revolution).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 08:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info Rings of time: Information Age (Digital Revolution). Nothing special would say, but it takes a lot of time and i am happy to finnaly made this. Especially when Information age didn't have any photo yet (main plan was to import this into Information Age article). Letters are huge because 1st is the intention to use it in printed media, so it must be seen in similar to A5 size. --Mile (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure he first Information Age thing was a "massage"? :) On the other hand, that would explain a lot about the Internet today... --cart-Talk 10:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 'w' in Walkman should be upper case. Also, I don't get why some things are in ALLCAPS and others aren't. PumpkinSky talk 12:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting idea but ultimately the image has a short shelf-life (i.e. next year) and the choice of events is somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent. For example, the Walkman and early mobile phones were not digital. The Mac, Intel and important chips are not included, yet Windows 10 is, which seems more of an evolution of a product than anything which changed history. Ultimately, any such list is going to be personal and controversial. I don't think the choice of font is very professional. -- Colin (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I count on that, not everyone will be satisfied what will be mentioned, was making list 2-3 days. What to put. It is as it is, spent too much on this. I am satisfied with it. Walkman, isnt digital, but goes under Info Age. Letters, etc... which letters would you take !? I dont like to official here. --Mile (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC) p.S. Luckily, i had date to start with first TCP/IP... otherwise, i wish huge tree, to put Magelan voyage, discovering of America, de Gama voyage...etc. Cart, its more idea. You get the tree, then count years, and then to make timeline. I know Info would be good.[reply]

Mile, I understand. I just think it would be a good idea to ask someone who speaks English to check a text before you present it here since it is not your language. The word I commented on was that I think it should be "message" which is something very different from a "massage" which you wrote. Please check with Google translate or something. --cart-Talk 12:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@cart Typo corrected. Thanx. --Mile (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emirates Airbus A380-861 A6-EER MUC 2015 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 06:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Airliners
Info c/u/n by me, mostly because it has been so widely used in the Wikis. — Julian H.^✈ 06:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 06:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -and because it`s a good photo.--Ermell (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality. --Code (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good quality, nice photo, photographer did nothing wrong. But it's simply not extraordinary for a FP to me. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo but I'm not wowed.--Peulle (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Airliners

File:Gran Palacio del Kremlin, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 28-29 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2017 at 21:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Night view of the Grand Kremlin Palace, Moscow, Russia. It was built from 1837 to 1849 on the site of the estate of the Grand Princes, which had been established in the 14th century on Borovitsky Hill. The palace, 125 metres (410 ft) long and 47 metres (154 ft) tall, was formerly the tsar's Moscow residence. All by me, Poc o² 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. There's a little color noise, but I don't know if there's any reason to edit such a large file. Not necessary for my vote, at any rate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 02:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 06:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gorgeous Picture. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --cart-Talk 09:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ --Aczap (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 26th edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 13:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image is tilt --The Photographer 23:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Support Well done, it's ok now --The Photographer 20:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, The Photographer, there was a tilt of 0,1 degrees. I've uploaded a new version --Poc o² 18:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont like tonality here. What happaned to normal picture, does it have to be HDR. I think it should look more like this one. Fasade of church is very white. Pink color is everywhere. Its disturbing. --Mile (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your version looks too bluish (cold) to me. Among us, you don't really need any comments to your oppose votes for my noms, there's a pattern. Poc o² 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poco_a_poco I found very useful the oppose comments (maybe some exceptions like "not wow", for example), however, comment a oppose vote is a requirement accepted for everyone who nominates pictures here. I really find the oppose votes comments more enriching than the positive ones because these comments help to improve the photographers quality and we are only able to improve thanks to constructive criticism. I particularly do not see anything wrong with the Mile comment and If you do not agree, ignore his comment but do not ask people to break the rules. --The Photographer 20:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kapelle Stadtfriedhof Göttingen 2017 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 07:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Chapel on the historic city cemetery in Göttingen, Germany. C/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 07:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Julian H.^✈ 07:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality of the image is great. The enveloping of the trees is what you have tried to compose but for some reason I feel that the right tree is blocking the building view and the picture does not seem to qualify for a FP candidate. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sanjay ach: Thank you for the comment. I did get the alternative shot close enough to have that tree out of the way, but I prefer this because the chapel is standing among trees and to me, they are as much the subject as the building itself. I do understand your concern though. — Julian H.^✈ 20:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 23:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I prefer the alternative shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: I have added the alternative below. — Julian H.^✈ 06:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Up to thirds, all good. Wouldnt go alternative. --Mile (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition; excellent image -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version of the motif because it highlights the character's park cemetery better.--Ermell (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the alternative, which you might want to publicize by pinging everyone who's voted here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: The original has gained all support votes since the alternative was posted, so I guess it is the more popular choice. — Julian H.^✈ 20:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Composition

Info An unobstructed view from a position somewhat closer to the building. — Julian H.^✈ 06:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this version, because the view of the chapel is essentially unobstructed and the trees delightfully embrace it on both sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The trees help to frame the building, an effect which is lost here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what you're seeing. They frame the building on each side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like that in the first photo, the base of the trees slope up towards the base of the building, which is lacking in the second photo. But to be fair, I wouldn't have opposed this image if only this version were nominated, so striking my oppose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's legitimate to oppose a featurable photo in favor of the version you prefer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Why? That would mean that two featureable versions could end up with 50 % opposes each, even though everyone agrees that they are both featurable. You should only oppose a candidate if you deem it not featurable. — Julian H.^✈ 05:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I think that everyone should be careful to avoid that situation and oppose an otherwise featurable photo only if it's clear that the result would be only to help the other version win. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Kapelle Stadtfriedhof Göttingen 2017 03.jpg

File:Holma Boat Club by the light of the moon.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 14:20:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info Holma Boat Club at Gullmarn fjord. This part of the fjord consists mostly of nature reserves, so there are no street lights and very few houses in the area. The scene is only lit by the moon, at the time approaching full at 97.2%. Looking in the opposite direction, you got this. All by me, -- cart-Talk 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support You've put the poor little camera to its limits but it's a nice image. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naw... it can take it. :D "...it's a lot tougher than some people think!". Going down to the fjord was done on impulse and you have to use what's available and make it work. :) --cart-Talk 14:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Basotxerri. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality isn't good,right part isn't sharp. More composition isn't very nice for me....and where is the moon? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The moon works the same way as the sun, you don't need to include it in a photo to see the things it is shining on, ;) --cart-Talk 19:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too dark (illumination of the building is missing for an appropriate image). --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Good composition and focus but I think it's too dark. HalfGig talk 23:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I change my vote per Cart's comment below. I get it now. HalfGig talk 22:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a small note about the darkness in the photo, since folks have commented on it. The whole idea here was to make a photo, showing the darkness you get with just the moon for light. There aren't many good photos here made that way. Of course I could crank up the exposure and get a nice photo in almost "normal" light and colors, but that would be missing the point. If I had just wanted a photo of the boat club to picture the different buildings there, I would have taken it in daylight. This is to show what moonlight photography can look like. A bit "outside the box" per the way I usually work. ;)--cart-Talk 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart's remarks above. Lovely moonlit scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 01:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
Info The Old Royal Naval College at Greenwich. The Queen's House is in the middle and the Royal Observatory partly visible to the rear. A high resolution (114MP) panorama created from 12 frames, taken from across the Thames. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There are some people cloned, for example, cyclists Support Better now --The Photographer 22:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, I'll see if I can eliminate them tomorrow. Is it just the two cyclists? If I can't remove them, I think they are far enough apart to be not easy to spot except to us eagle-eyed reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, I have removed the repeated cyclists. Also managed to improve the Union Jack in the centre of the picture. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fix it, There are another severals pixels problem without a real importance. Btw, you are the only one eagle-eyed reviewer. --The Photographer 23:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. I don't notice a problem with people, but I'm sure it'll be dealt with. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be much prettier if the building was in the sun, but this still passes the bar IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thennicke agree, however the buildings face north so are never in full sun. You end up with an image like this or this where a portion is in deep shadow. A photo taken from the hill like this would get the full sun from the other side. Btw, here are the buildings from the air -- it is a much more three-dimensional scene than it appears. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the context. I think I'd still prefer the early morning light with the diagonal shadows - the soft yellow glow is oh-so-pretty, and the asymmetrical lighting doesn't faze me. And with buildings such as these you always have the option of getting up early and doing what Julian did in this image, where the sun is rising from behind the building but the facades are still getting plenty of reflected light from the bright sky. I do think that this image has about the worst lighting possible for a building - no offence intended there at all - it is well processed though, and I judge on execution more than on subject/lighting, so still FP to me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thennicke agree, and if this was an ordinary building at ordinary resolution, then just a QI -- there's nothing magical about the light here. At least it lights evenly for educational purpose, rather than having some of the building hidden in shadow. I do think that strong side light would probably provoke a lot of opposes with complaints that too much of the building was in shadow, unless one artificially pulled up the shadows strongly. The light in Julian's photo is very nice. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry for elaborating on this point but another thought I had - you could also do such an image on an overcast day, such as in this image. Then you avoid this ugly dynamic range with the bright sky in the background and the dark stuff in the foreground, because everything is evenly-lit and uniform. I think we tend to forget that overcast days can actually produce really great architectural (and other) images, and that a white sky is not always a problem - sometimes that's the way it actually looks -- Thennicke (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Thennicke, no problem. It is good to think about how to improve picture-taking. Looking at our FP exterior architecture photos, of the many dozens of images, I can count the ones taken on overcast days on one hand. That's quite an exceptional example there, where the unusual geometric shape suits the soft lighting, and the exterior is not grey stone, but dark glossy surfaces that work well against a plain sky. Overcast sky is not unusual in the UK and can be really bright to the point of needing HDR to avoid it simply blowing to white, or really dark where one needs to artificially raise the exposure or else the image looks too dull to be enjoyable. You won't avoid "bright sky; dark foreground" unless the sky is actually not evenly lit. For example, dark rainclouds behind the subject and clear sun low behind the photographer always generates a dramatic image. People just don't tend to like white or light-grey skies, and I think if this was a plain grey sky, it would be opposed for it. Leaving the sky aside here, the actual subject is lit via clouds, as it would on an overcast day, so is softly lit, just nothing exciting. That has the benefit of not needing any careful exposure handling, lifted shadows or reduced highlights. This is "the way it actually looks", but that's not really an argument for generating the "wow" for FP vs the thousands of QIs taken on overcast days. Btw, "Capturing Light" by Michael Freeman is a great book on different sorts of light. -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How general composition light rule the background need have a different contrast level than the foreground, however, I understand the Thennicke comment, the sky look

Overexposed , maybe you could fix it using lightroom. --The Photographer 18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Prismo345 (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame about the scaffolding around Bellot Memorial. -1 point for you making it infinitely harder for me to ever get a FP of this very scene! :D -- KTC (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- KTC, you have a good panoramic view of the other side. There's also morning/evening/night options. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish I'd been able to get this view the day I was there ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good job. --Selbymay (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A grateful motif presented on a technically high level and very detailed. But I find the colors and light situation too weak for a FP. Sorry. --Milseburg (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reviewing it again, I think it was a little too bright. I have slightly adjusted the global exposure/shadows. Think the sky/clouds are better like this. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the clouds seemed blown - I was going to mention that -- Thennicke (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 01:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stift Ossiach Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 10:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Winged altar at Ossiach Abbey Church, Carinthia, Austria. Anonymous master of the elder Villach Studio, around 1505. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Wish you could have gotten the top though ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The top right corner is taking importance of the main subject in the shadow --The Photographer 21:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Better, nice job --The Photographer 04:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: I am not sure that I got your point correctly, but I have reduced brightness in the top right corner to get it less prominent --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 01:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kissingen Brunnenhaus 0417RM0697.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 13:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Quality_images/Subject/Architecture/Interior
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I'm not really sure what I'm seeing here, with all the brass pipes, etc and what looks like a pool with no water. -- Colin (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the water taps the spa guests can tap into the "delicious" healing water in cups brought along. In the corner of the basin the spring is bordered. I can't say which function the pelvis has exactly.--Ermell (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It might not be the Pump Room in Bath, but I can surely imagine some of Jane Austen's characters socializing here, taking the waters. Great atmosphere. --cart-Talk 20:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose f/3.5 on panorama ist kein gut, schlecht ja. Fence near you is out of some hyperfocal distance, other parts loose some sharpnes. Unless you do stack job, which isnt visible. Other part, i am missing water inside the pool, and some more description about Rakoczy which name is on the stone. That was count or more revolutioner from Hungary. --Mile (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The water in places like this room is for drinking, not swimming or bathing in. The blue representation of water in the lower area is probably just ornamental and not a pool. --cart-Talk 17:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @PetarM: f 3.5 is surely not optimal and with a tripod I would have chosen a different aperture. For information about the place and the namesake of the source I recommend Wikipedia. Incidentally, some sharpness is always lost when correcting the perspective, but this is nothing new. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate the picture.--Ermell (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but good enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agree with Daniel Case. PumpkinSky talk 14:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: You picked a QI category for this. I changed it to a FP category upon closing. Feel free to change the one I picked if you prefer. PumpkinSky talk 14:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 14:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plectranthus verticillatus in a ceramic pot.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 20:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Lamiaceae
Info I'm nominating this mostly because I think this is soothing to watch, but also because we don't see many plants photographed this way here at FPC. It may not be to everyone's taste though -- cart-Talk 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this very much. --Yann (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but what's happening with the lighting at the top? It looks like it's vignetted in reverse, and only for that edge -- Thennicke (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The background was not entirely even and also tilting backwards a bit, I smoothed it out a little. It's now fixed on a better monitor. --cart-Talk 08:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looks better now -- Thennicke (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I normally just ignore this type of nomination, but the composition and technical quality are just too poor. Seriously - and OBJECTIVELY - how can this be supported for FP? Charles (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you looking at the same picture? The quality is good, and the composition is just perfect. Yann (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the nomination: "It may not be to everyone's taste". I'm simply trying something we don't see very often here. If most voters find it appalling, it will be voted out and I won't try anything like it again. --cart-Talk 09:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, your comment comes across as sarcastic and aggressive. I'm sure it wasn't meant that way but perhaps the choice of words could be kinder/more constructive -- Thennicke (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles. --Karelj (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it's certainly not the worst image I've seen, the level of detail isn't quite what I'd call "one of the best images on Commons". Nice light, though.--Peulle (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice shot with a pleasant composition. Worth to be featured. --Selbymay (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart's nomination statement. Frankly, this is how most people experience their plants. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Charles --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The flowers in her hair by John George Brown (95504819).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 15:02:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by John George Brown - uploaded by Moheen Reeyad - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Selbymay (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galgenwaard at night matchday.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 16:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Thomas van de Weerd - uploaded by WikiZeven - nominated by WikiZeven -- WikiZeven (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikiZeven (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highlights overexposed and perspective issues. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is this? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Livioandronico2013: This is a football stadium at night during a football match. WikiZeven (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basotxerri --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several quality issues; perspective, chromatic aberrations, general lack of sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abandon building insurgentes niza mexico.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 15:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I would have nominated this photo, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Livio --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess supporters like the black and yellow pattern of the building seen in front view but it's not enough to create a FP. I don't find the picture attractive, I maybe would appreciate better a wider view, or a more creative vision. --Selbymay (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Livio this time. --Laitche (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but I don't really see a wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmontuy (talk • contribs) 01:40 14 nov 2017‎ (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manhattan Executive Apartments from Glebe Park, Canberra ACT.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 00:23:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Architecture
Info All by me -- Thennicke (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 03:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- A nice picture of an apartment building but nothing more.--Ermell (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've to agree with Ermell Poc o² 18:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, lighting could be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the lighting? -- Thennicke (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel below echoes my thoughts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no wow factor and the picture looks like just another building. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I sort of see what you were thinking, but per the above it just didn't make it to the sensor Also, the color is sort of cool and washed out. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asclepeion Epidaurus (3).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 09:30:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Greece
Info Heavy rain clouds over the ancient site at Epidaurus. The only editing done is perspective; the clouds are as dark as they were in reality. The ruins of the ancient temple to Asclepius stands in a prominent position in the sanctuary. All by User:Peulle. -- Peulle (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's what looks to me like a fairly prominent dusk spot in a dark part of the cloud; let me know if you need for me to try to mark the spot. Otherwise, I like this photo as a "landscape with ruins" that reminds me of 18th-century paintings. Are you defining your photo as "landscape with ruins and dark clouds"? I think defining it that way, rather than as a view of just the ruins, just might make the difference between approval and failure for this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for spotting the dust. :) And yes, this is definitely not just a photo of the ruins; the reason I felt it might deserve the FP badge is because of the light created by the sun behind those heavy clouds. Should I specify this in the image description too, or is it sufficient to say it in this nomination?--Peulle (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the photo and the scene goes on the file's page. Information about the FPC nomination and arguments pro or con, goes only on the nomination page. I don't think someone using a Wikipedia or this image data bank will be interested in reading about why a photo should be featured. --cart-Talk 19:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Underexposed zones and composition --The Photographer 16:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I don't feel strongly about this photo, but I think we should accept Peulle's statement that the clouds (and presumably the rest of the picture) is as dark as it actually was. I like the light, shadow and ruins in the picture. Colin might say that I'm being too influenced by this reminding me of good paintings with similar subject matter, and if he did say that, he might be right, so I'm hedging a little by only mildly supporting, though of course I'm aware that regardless of how strong or weak my vote is, it counts just as much (or as little). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark clouds and sunlight can be a good combination but overall this is a bit underwhelming. The actual monument is really not very much at all (see this angle). The scene reminds me a bit of File:Tourists posing at the National Monument of Scotland.jpg, and even that joke of a monument is more complete than this. The tourists, scrap metal poles and orange and blue distractions (car? junk?). Overall the image is really soft, so either there's a focus error and/or the use of f/16 on a crop sensor with that superzoom lens is just too much diffraction softening. Ikan, yes the problem about being reminded about better famous artwork, is it reminds me the famous artwork is better. While echoing a famous motif is fine, one's execution of it really has to stand alone, rather than relying on a memory of something else. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your point of view is logical. I'll consider whether to change my vote to neutral. But in partial argument (though, again, I don't feel strongly about this), I don't think this has to be as good as the best of the "landscape with ruins" paintings to be a viable FP. It doesn't look like this will pass at FPC, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only say it should "stand alone" as a great image, not that it is as good as or better than some classic artwork. I don't find a "reminds me of a great work" to be a convincing reason to support an image. -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Something can remind you of a great work while being utter schlock. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: if that's your way of saying that this particular image is poor, I'd call that the best hidden insult ever. :D --Peulle (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a general statement. If I thought this image was poor, I wouldn't have voted for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. It seems to have trouble deciding what it wants to be. Maybe this would work with sunlight on the ruin and/or less background. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 23:37:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lights of Climbers staying over night in the wall of El Capitan

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports OR Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Lights of Climbers staying over night in the wall of El Capitan as seen from Yosemite valley. I only realized by seeing the lights late after dark that the routes take several days for most climbers. I think this picture nicely illustrates the climbing section of the article and provides a unique view on climbing in the valley. Created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C-M (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, but I don't think it enters the sports category --Prismo345 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but should really just be Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural, the climbers are barely visible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is an interesting capture and subject. However the mountain and lights are not sharp -- either the focus was more on the trees or the camera moved slightly in the long exposure. Your other shot (File:Elcapitanclimbers-2.jpg) is sharp and the camping climbers are even visible in places, though it doesn't have the starry sky. Perhaps a slightly stopped-down aperture would have helped along with increased ISO. I think I'd probably support the #2 even though this one catches the eye more in thumb. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Colin. I'd prefer #2 - also for the visually highly interesting verticals (trees...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enchanting. It's the little lights matching the star constellations and the harmonious cliff/sky color that make this scene, "...on earth as it is in heaven". --cart-Talk 09:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to make it even harder to decide I added a third version, this times in landscape. I agree that the sharpness of #2 is slightly better and I also like the structure of the trees - but, and that is the reason why I prefer this one: they diminish the actual size of the wall as the trees seem to have the same hight. However, if there is a large majority for one of the other two pictures I am happy to change. --C-M (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging Colin, Martin Falbisoner, Prismo345 and King of Hearts to let them know that alts are available. --cart-Talk 20:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred. -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, I like this one too. Yes it's blurred a little but I think it best makes clear that the lights on the cliffs are its subject. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one better than the other versions. The portrait version expresses the height better than the landscape variant. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The third one is better. Yann (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too purple, IMO, and not as sharp as I'd like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2

Support I think there are two aspects to this. One is a night photo of the mountain, with stars and strange dots of light on the cliff face. Another is a photo documenting the night camps of climbers on this mountain. I think the second aspect is what fascinates us and raises this above any photo of stars and mountains, and is educational rather than just pretty. And it is only really this photo that is (a) sharp of the mountain itself and (b) clear enough to see several climbers in their light spots. The trees reaching for the sky are good, though I accept the argument above that they may give an impression the mountain is smaller than it is. I also wonder why the colour is so different in this one compared to the other two, shot within a few minutes of each other. There's much more of a purple/blue tint in the others, which seems artificial to me and this one seems more neutrally coloured (see both rock and sky). -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Color: I am currently switching from Lightroom 6 to Capture One as Adobe killed the stand alone License and I am not willing to rent my photo database software (but that is a discussion we should not get into here). This picture was the first picture I developed, still using Lightroom while the other two have been developed in Capture One which seems to have a slightly warmer, more magenta white balance as a default. As I didn't have the intention to have the two pictures side by side I never compared the two during development. Hence: I can match the color balance if needed, but I am hesitated to blow up the number of alts even more... -C-M (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first photo's EXIF seems to suggest it has been through both Lightroom and Capture One. Based on the colours, I'd say there's a problem with your Capture One setup. It really doesn't look natural to me. I see in Lightroom you use the "Adobe Standard" profile, which tends to be neutral if boring vs the "Camera standard" which emulates your camera brand's JPGs. I don't know if Capture One has an equivalent. Ideally I think you want your raw software to be neutral and any deviation from that to be a deliberate choice. -- Colin (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, I imported the whole Lightroom database into Capture One which took over the exposure adjustment, crops as well as my keywords and ratings, hence Lightroom being mentioned as "History Software Agent" in the EXIF data. Capture One applied the Nikon D500 Profile which indeed has a different tone compared to the Adobe Standard. When I select "Adobe DNG File Neutral" I get a similar color to the one of Lightroom. --C-M (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It may be sharper and all but frankly, I find all those trees blocking the veiw of the mountain a bit opressing, like you were looking up at all that glory from a pit down in a dark forest. --cart-Talk 09:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As Colin says, this is the best of the 3, but I'm not sure I'm ready to support it. It's certainly sharper and has much more believable color, and the photographer has the artistic license not to use perspective correction on the trees but let them seem to converge. I would say it has wow, too; I'm just not sure how much I like it. I think I'd prefer a wider composition that's as sharp or sharper and doesn't have a purplish sky, but that's not an option in this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 3

Support This is the best of the 3. --Yann (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Not as blurred as the first one, but not as sharp as the second and concerned the purple/blue tint is not as faithful as #2. -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ This one could work too. --cart-Talk 09:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking ths. Better to focus on one. --cart-Talk 13:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support If I had to pick one it would be this one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Yosemite night elcapitan climbers.jpg

Comment MZaplotnik Are you sure you have closed ths correctly? File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg have 8 support. --cart-Talk 12:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter, by my count, yes. File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg has 72% support ratio (8 supports, 3 opposes) while Alt 3 (File:Yosemite night elcapitan climbers.jpg) has 78% ratio (7 supports, 2 opposes). MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MZaplotnik Ok, I see. Different way of counting and fine by me if no one objects. However, I see this a good example of why Alts should be avoided as much as possible. Thank you for closing. --cart-Talk 13:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yosemite Tunnel View Fall.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 22:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Cliche picture and viewpoint, but I think my light was better than most of the other pictures from tunnel view. Also, the clouds around El Capitan are quite nice, even so Half Dome is unfortunately not visible. Created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C-M (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support excellent autumnal mood! I prefer the alt --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if we have an existing FP of this tourist viewpoint. I see User:Diliff has uploaded five photos of this scene in various light: File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg, for example. I think the angle of the light highlights the rocks better in Diliff's and the trees are better lit. It is also sharper. However the autumn colours are nice here, though most of the trees are in shadow, which is a shame as they might be amazing if sunlit. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Comment Sunlit may be problematic in autumn as the valleys orientation is west-east, it may be possible in summer when the sun is higher to clear the mountain - different colors however. Before I took this picture the sun was shining through clouds and only came low enough & western enough to cast the ray of light on the very left side of the valley. I uploaded an alternative version which I took a bit earlier - that one does not have the ray of light and hence had a lower dynamic range resulting in a brighter view on the trees. --C-M (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm enjoying the trees more in this one. A spot of sunlight (as in the first) can be great, but I think it has to light up the subject, rather just an arbitrary patch of hill off to the left. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. HalfGig talk 22:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a nice image, of course but nowadays it's a too common scene, we've seen this view too many times. And when I think that the image is taken from here, all the magic is gone. The picture looks a bit oversharpened, BTW. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:61-220-0107 Nyrkiv Castle 2 RB.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2017 at 16:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is nice but the castle ruins are quite unsharp, I'd like to see more visual impact. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri, and also, the forest is unsharp as well, and not spectacular to me. I think a photo of this motif that's sharper and eliminates most of the forest could be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light, mood and composition. I especially appreciate how the thick forest and the vegetation seems to slowly swallow the ruins. --Selbymay (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Joining the Basotxerri opposers club. The fog on the forest doesn't help either. -- Pofka (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /WikiZeven (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garaio - Embalse de Ullíbarri-Gamboa - Playa 08.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 19:16:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 03:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 03:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very inviting for the eyes, even though it isn't good weather for a swim. What kind of waterfowls are those? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea but there were really lots of them. Also I'm not sure if these are stationary (which I don't think) or if they are on its way from Northern Europe to Africa. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I've just had a look to another telephoto shot and it makes me think that the waterfowls are coots. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...which you can see on KoH's Golden Gate Park image, too... --Basotxerri (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason I haven't supported this is because of that cut waterline/beach curve on the right side. You don't happen to have a version that includes the whole curve (and maybe something more on the left side as balance) somewhere in your archives? --cart-Talk 20:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that someone would find that flaw. The problem is that I'm rather a Lightroomer rather than a Photoshopper and I won't be able to fix it, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support although cart has a point. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As almost always. Many times at least. ;-) --Basotxerri (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--cart-Talk 20:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support − Meiræ 23:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 03:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support --fedaro (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garaio - Embalse de Ullíbarri-Gamboa - Playa 09.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 19:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent mood. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the colors and vanishing point. HalfGig talk 03:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ausgezeichnet! PumpkinSky talk 04:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really excellent photo. Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yesterday I was lucky with the weather. Almost raining and grey all day, and then the sun came out for about half an hour and I was in the right place at the right time. Good light and dramatic clouds. Both images have been taken from almost the same point, one towards the lake, the other towards the parking lots. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a sky! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great scene and rich colors. --cart-Talk 12:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you would lean down, made path wider so would be more photogenical. Shot is interesting for comparing: in pano you feel joy, nature while in tight portrait its more screenshot for a horror movie. --Mile (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what me made to shoot the image this way. I'm sure I tried to get down a bit but something seemed better in this composition. But indeed, this is an interesting subject for varying. Landscape, portrait, vanishing point in the centre or rule of thirds... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 03:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golden Gate Park San Francisco December 2016 003.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2017 at 04:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural (technically manmade but there's no better category for manmade natural scenery)
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me (no wow) sorry--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Livioandronico2013: If an image is not interesting for me I can not say that it is bad. Than my vote is neutral or I say nothing. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent composition, very good colors. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Neutral~~ As much as I'd like to support, it's the white car in the middle that brakes the deal for me. Any chance to clone it out? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The car brakes the deal?

Good one! Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Hah! The best unintentional pun I've made in quite a while! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be rather hard to remove because of its reflection, and I don't really like altering reality by too much. How about I burn the area a bit - would that be enough for you? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reconsidering I'll give my weak support. We should leave reality alone ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not bothered by the car, although it would not affect my !vote if it were cloned out. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If the car can be cloned well, I'm for.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see here a quite ordinary city park scene and the longer I look at the picture the less I can discover the reason for an FP eligibility. Where is the WOW effect? Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've burned the car in the middle to make it a little less distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand you want to get the entire reflection of the largest tree in the photo, but the most interesting thing to me is the forms of the vegetation themselves, not their reflections, and I think I'm also reacting to the amount of water in the photo as feeling unbalanced to me. I feel like I'd support the photo if you were to crop out about the nearest 2/5 of the water (in other words, a bit before you get to the coot, which should remain in the picture). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI is fine for such a ordinary image. -- Pofka (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:India - Kolkata electricity meters - 3832.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 00:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Jorge Royan - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but this is not the kind of photos I expect as FP; Sorry :( --Prismo345 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prismo345: Why's that? Your oppose is fine, but you have to provide a reason. Do you not like the lack of contrast, or what? -- Thennicke (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change my mind, and I support it, okay? :) | Prismo (talk. | contr.) 16:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Too cluttered, hard for the eye to find a focal point. HalfGig talk 03:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! --Yann (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a "God bless this mess and be thankful that it works" kind of image. Great capture. --cart-Talk 12:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question@W.carter: Didn't you nominate something like this yourself once? (Although I seem to remember it being smaller). Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case Yep, I did but mine was minimalistic and not as intriguing and charming as this one. --cart-Talk 08:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Although the sharpness on the left hand side is diminishing, the picture has a strong expressiveness and charm. The apparent disorder is in its own way somehow orderly.--Ermell (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image especially the expression of the boy and his pose. The background also reveals the complex connections :) --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little motion blur on the boy, but that's nowhere near a problem. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Tallmon 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 03:41:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info created + uploaded by Pixpep - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 03:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 03:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are things I don't like and I wish the wire was not there but I can't stop from agreeing this should be supported. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per PumpkinSky. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wish I saw the tops of more trees, but the light is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The beauty of Nature!!! Gorgeous snap. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support YESSSSS! --Basotxerri (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big WOW! --Code (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! When I first saw this at the Swedish WLE, I hesitated to nominate it here because of some small tech shortcomings, so I'm very glad to see that people here can now look beyond such things and see only the beauty of the photo. --cart-Talk 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 14:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Ermell (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All said, Poc o² 17:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did a reverse image search and found a whole lot of hits from before it was uploaded here. Thankfully (sort of), that looks to be because the uploader had it on his Flickr account since 2015. It's "all rights reserved" there, however, so @Pixpep: please go through COM:OTRS to make it "official" that you are the owner of the copyright. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the find. Pixpep's only activity was uploading some images to WLE, so it's rather unlikely that they reply here; however, maybe, someone of our colleagues who are active on Flickr too (e.g. Code, Poco a poco) could contact Peter Nilsson there to make sure it's the same person and the CC license on Commons is approved. --A.Savin 17:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also left a message for Axel Pettersson (WMSE), who tagged the image with WLE, just in case it was perhaps through some outreach that the user uploaded these files (or some other circumstance that could allow for off-wiki contact/knowledge). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: I left a comment on Flickr. --Code (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: He wrote me an e-mail saying he's the author. Do we need anything else? --Code (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Code: The question is, if he is the same person as the uploader on Commons (Pixpep). If not: if he is at least agreed with the upload under CC on Commons. If he has stated either of this, IMO we don't need anything else (but if the second applies, you may wish to preserve his e-mail). Thanks --A.Savin 06:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Code: He's the uploader. --Code (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mile (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice - Der Fussi 14:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support My my my! - Benh (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Like watching butter melt on grits ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is fantastic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice place to kill someone --The Photographer 15:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What a thought! What made you think of that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Cabin in the Woods?? :) --cart-Talk 22:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: and @W.carter: I'm sorry but No, I was thinking on a better rated IMDB movie, Evil Dead II --The Photographer 16:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Laitche (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. Strong POTY contender? -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Code (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Црква „Св. Илија“ - Лубница 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 15:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know if I'll vote on this nomination; so far the picture isn't wowing me, but it has a nice mood and I'll live with it for a while. But please fix the little dust spot to the right of the start of the tiles on the steeple. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have removed that one and also another one nearby.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unimpressive lighting, only moderate quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail of the fresco, the Monastery of Saint Jovan Bigorski, Macedonia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2017 at 10:00:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by BrankaVV - uploaded by BrankaVV - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is well enough rendered (though there is some red/green CA in the top left on the black text). But the full image is this and for an artwork, I can't see a particular justification to support an arbitrary crop at FP. Fine for a QI, but surely our "finest" images of artworks would endeavour to be high-resolution copies of the whole work. -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colin Interesting, red/green CA is probably worse than man without head with spoiled focus. Otherwise good represantion of old slavic cyrilic letters. Because of that, maybe it could not pass QI, but definately worth of FP (representing of Slavic culture). In any case, pro photographer with 1.6 mill shots and top camera against hobby camerman with Canon EOS 60D. Crop might be beter, but putting of failed FP + and here - is wonderful. Suppose that president is more then this cultural heritage. --Mile (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Some CA is acceptable (imo, though not to others) in a great photo of a scene, and I'd also be more permissive in a ultra-wide shot as CA is harder to eliminate in such lens designs. But here we are reproducing an artwork and the bar for "finest" on Commons for artworks is really rather high. I have no idea why you are comparing to a snap photo of Obama, these are about as far away from each other, photographically, as it it is possible. To be honest, I think it should pass QI as it is certainly a useful photo and of good quality -- I think QI's obsession with pixel peeping is extremely harmful to the project. We have plenty FPs of frescos and other religious art that include most/all of a scene. I don't see why we should start featuring random crops, unless the cropped view is exceptionally notable or there is some physical reason why photographing the whole scene is very hard. -- Colin (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mile, of course it's just a random and non-notable crop because it depicts something that affects hundreds of million people, while the fresco is older than some advanced civilisations today. As for the "man without had with spoiled focus", don't forget that he's a supranatural deity that everyone here must worship, otherwise risking to be either bullied or blocked indefinitely and reported to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team.:)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Colin. Our goal with painting digitizations should be the whole work before we consider featuring a crop. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with the others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Primeiro Congresso Mundial de Direito Ambiental, no RJ (26116150493).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2017 at 05:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Empresa Brasil de Comunicação - uploaded by User:Sturm - nominated by User:Sturm -- Sturm (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sturm (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark and too shallow DoF for me.--Peulle (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, but it's not just that the DoF is shallow: We also can't see her lips, through a combination of poor lighting and the foreground being blurred. Too bad, because she's quite an interesting subject as well as an important leader. I'd love to feature a picture of her. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One interesting part of portrait is missing. --Mile (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everyone who paid attention to it. I will try to pay attention to the aspects you all have mentioned. So, I withdraw my nomination Sturm (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:EstacionGardey.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 22:59:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 22:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm leaning toward voting for this, but do you have a version that includes the whole tree on the left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and the whole pull rod? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for your review, it is the unique photo of this subject that I have Ezarateesteban 16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tree and pull rod cut, nothing really special. Yann (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Between the randomness of the composition and the oddly cool color, I'm not wowed either. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above, wagon is cut. --Mile (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut tree and wagon. -- Pofka (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I'll try another shot of this subject, thanks Ezarateesteban 23:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dish with fruits.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 19:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits and raw vegetables
Info Dish with fruits. My shot. Maybe i should call it Raw fruits dish ? -- Mile (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The fruits are beautifully captured, but the tablecloth is distracting because 1) it is too similar in luminosity to the white plate and 2) the pattern is too ornate (the in-focus parts of it really draw the viewer's eyes away from the subject). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful colors. Picture would have been even better if there was a wood background. But overall love the picture --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, nice piece of wood. I was looking for some. --Mile (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice still life with fruit, and I find it perfectly natural for it to be on a table with a tablecloth. The decoration on the tablecloth is pleasant to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is too tight, the pattern of the tablecloth is distracting (not to say ugly) and the dark top corners make the whole picture look unbalanced. I'd rather expect a featured still of fruits look like this [4], [5], [6]. --Code (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Yesterday i made 2 crops, one wider and one 16:9 Maybe on 16:9 is a bit narrow crop, so i put more space now, also added some vibrance since first was original. So all voters check again. --Mile (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) @Code i dont like that darkness, maybe they were impressed by Dutch painters.[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but to me the whole thing looks sterile, stark and not appetizing at all. When I see fruits photograped something like this, I would like to be tempted to eat them. The polyester table cloth with distracting pattern doesn't help either. --cart-Talk 11:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Food photography needs to be arranged with a view to eating and to draw one towards the subject. Also an odd choice of fruit, unless you guys eat lemons like you do oranges. -- Colin (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support That poor apple, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin Poc o² 07:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good sharpness but with the charmlessness of a stockphoto.--Ermell (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stock-like photography has a rightful place here too, and I find that Mile produces some of our best shots of this kind of thing; very useful to the project -- Thennicke (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The justifiable existence of such images was not questioned.--Ermell (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose QI is fine for it. The composition is not extraordinary and is way too classy. -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Augustusburg, Southern Facade, November 2017 -02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 11:48:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info The southern facade of Schloss Augustusburg. The Augustusburg and Falkenlust Palaces form a historical building complex in Brühl, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, which has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1984. The buildings are connected by the spacious gardens and trees of the Schlosspark. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 12:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, and the best image from this angle.--Peulle (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Some of the plants are unsharp, but, IMO, so what? This photo is excellent, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though grass could be sharper. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great light and composition Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice.--Ermell (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tschiertschen (1350 meter) in Graubünden 10.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2017 at 19:06:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural# Switserland
Info Tschiertschen (1350 meter) in Graubünden. Sun rises above Tschiertschen. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creative juxtaposition of different elements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty nice mood with the mountains but too many cropped and disturbing elements make the composition unbalanced. --Selbymay (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would remove concrete fence (bottom crop - annoted), would get more panoramic and made some PD of house. --Mile (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @PetarM: Thank you for your suggestion. See alternative.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For some reason too many intersecting objects in the composition make it un-interesting. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Sanjay. I can see what you were thinking but it just isn't coming through. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not good enough as others previously mentioned. Including the house whose roof is visible in the bottom of the right corner might improve the composition (if it is possible in this location). -- Pofka (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is much more splendid view. In winter this could be very top compo. --Mile (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose No improvement. Lots of sky, mountains and house right at the borders, strage crop. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ruined completely for me. -- Pofka (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /WikiZeven (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Feld -- 2017 -- 3171.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 20:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 20:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 20:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. I like this. It might not be everyone's taste but I like this. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khandoba temple Pune.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2017 at 13:37:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: ~~Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#India~~ Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events (Arts, concerts, shows...)

I have changed the FP category. This is a photo of a huge crowd and religious worship, which takes place at this temple. -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info created and uploaded by PKharote - nominated by Selbymay (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC) - This picture won the first prize for WLM in India this year. It's rare to see this kind of monument with the crowd around during a celebration in this competition and it adds much in value - aesthetic as encyclopedic.[reply]
Support Selbymay (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Time ago without see a amazing and spectacular image like this. Right moment, amazing point of view, composition, historic moment and situation, quality, charming and a long list of amazing for this image. Some things could be better, for example not having cut the structure similar to a Christmas tree in the lower right, also the arm of the person on the left, however, totally minuscule comments compared to the grandiosity of this spectacular photo and possibly image of the year --The Photographer 14:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now because of perspective issues - verticals should be vertical. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As it's an awarded picture, I think we don't have to edit it, unless you want to upload an alternative version, even if I don't see the necessity. I put the proposition in the category Religious buildings but the main subject is not the temple but the celebration, it's more a news image than an architectural view. --Selbymay (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, Uoaei1. The purpose of this photo is not to be an architectural shot. The camera appears to be pointing slightly down, and so that is the perspective. -- Colin (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What ever this is, the perspective issue disturbs me, otherwise I would not have opposed. The only result of my vote is probably that you have to wait a couple of days longer to receive the FP star. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uoaei1 by why you are "disturbed" enough to oppose? [though we all know why Livio opposes] There is an expectation in architectural photography that we present a perpendicular view in rectilinear projection and at sufficient distance to avoid exessive wide-angle distortion. But the purpose of the photography here is to give the observer's view of the event. We have people on a high position throwing turmeric on a crowd below. The obvious direction of view is to the crowd. You wouldn't, at this point, look straight ahead at the towers across, so neither should our perspective give that impression. The angle here is a good compromise between a direct look down and keeping level enough to retain the top of the spires. I simply think it is factually wrong to describe this as a "perspective issue". The perspective is correct and a valid one. If you don't like the view and angle, then fine that is merely a matter of taste, but let's not confuse that with any technical fault that isn't there. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Colin: When I see these leaning verticals, I feel disturbed - not more and not less. And I see that a correction would be easy. Do you want to discuss my personal impressions? Please be respectful and accept my vote. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can be respectful if you express your opinion as a matter of taste/feeling. But a statement like "verticals should be vertical" or a complaint about "perspective issues" is simply factually and optically wrong. Furthermore, it gives a bad indication to photographers thinking of nominating at FPC that we have rather odd and limited ideas of what is valid (vs what is enjoyed or disliked), or to photographers trying to improve their photography, that someone this image has a fundamental technical flaw. -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Colin: I refer to the image quality rules - so what is wrong or insufficient, or even simply factually and optically wrong? And before you explain me that this rule just applies to architecture photography, just have a look in what category this is nominated! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Uoaei1, as you already know, this rule only applies to architecture photography, and even then only for a certain style of architecture photography -- we have several examples that rightly deviate from the rule the camera must be pointing directly level or up. This sort of rigidity of thinking, that there is only one correct way, discourages creative photography. See Dreyfus model of skill acquisition for where "rules" sits in one's journey. The category is not, in fact, what the image has been nominated to be judged for, though it can be helpful if chosen well. If you remember, in the past, those who maintain our FP galleries used to decide where to put each photo, which isn't always easy as a photo can apply in several categories. It was then decided to pass that job onto the nominator. We've gone from the task being done by those familiar with the categories and their maintenance, to the task being done by novices. So we now very frequently find the nominator hasn't chosen well, and the nomination gets these sort of comments about this irrelevance. If you haven't spotted the crowd of hundreds of people, being showered by saffron in an act of religious worship, then you're looking at a different picture to me :-). -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular scene. -- Colin (talk)
Support Wow. That's what FP is for! --Yann (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazed also as a jury member of WLM India :) Poc o² 18:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! Top-down photos are always hard, if not impossible, to correct and here a slight tilt doesn't matter. My main concern is: How do you keep your camera clean with all that powder flying around! :) --cart-Talk 18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Uoaei1,terrible terrible... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great action shot, just an amazing image. I don't give a damn about verticals being parallel in this kind of image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderfully NatGeo-ish! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question PKharote, one request: Presumably, the occasion is Holi. Could the fact that pigments are being thrown to celebrate Holi be added to the file description? I wonder, too, whether there's a category for Holi. If so, it should be added for this file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to improve the description with links. J e e 04:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jee. That's interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an extraordinary event but I think the photographer could have better framed (etc. clouds and someone's hand or head on the bottom left) . --Gnosis (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although adding {{Perspective}} might be better. --Laitche (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the perspective could result in a cut composition that IMHO is a generate another problem. --The Photographer 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Even more impressive in full view. Absolutely. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Der Fussi 14:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary scene. -- Pofka (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events (Arts, concerts, shows...)

File:Queensboro Bridge New York October 2016 003.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2017 at 02:41:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the two light spots, see annotations? Can you cancel them? --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, I'd love to support a photo of this bridge, but in this case, it's a photo of part of the bridge (I guess from Roosevelt Island), facing the uninteresting Queens side. I remember walking over this bridge in the late afternoon years ago and seeing the yellow sunlight glinting off the old factories further north than shown in the picture, which made them look kind of beautiful. I think this scene probably looked more beautiful to you in person, but I don't think the light is special enough to make the view that interesting, and the cutoff of the bridge bothers me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classical but very good job. --Selbymay (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It works. --Mile (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky Could you please sign your vote above to make it valid. --cart-Talk 17:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Oops. Sorry mam. Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous snap --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another WLM-US submission that, this time, did meet with a lot of judicial approval. I'm not bothered by it being of the Queens side ... I have a feeling Long Island City will grow more in the future, and this picture may capture a moment in its development that will be past sooner than we realize. Also, at least this way you get that feel of the city at sunset, something that would be different from the opposite side as you'd have a lot of backlit buildings (I suppose someone could try that at sunrise, though ... it might get that quality of the view of which Fitzgerald wrote ("the city seen from the Queensboro Bridge is always the city as seen for the first time") Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really good and the perspective works well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anfiteatro de Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-17, DD 13-18 HDR PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 18:03:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info View during the blue hour of the exterior of the Pula Arena, an amphitheatre located in Pula, Croatia. This Roman edifice was constructed between 27 BC and 68 AD and is among the largest surviving Roman arenas in the world. At the same time, is the best preserved ancient monument in Croatia and the only remaining amphitheater having all four side towers with all three Roman architectural orders entirely preserved. Poc o² 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good job, congrats. --Selbymay (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll vote on this later - it's a good photo and probably merits a feature, but I have a personal preference for the warm light in File:Anfiteatro de Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-17, DD 49-57 HDR PAN.jpg, although there are a couple of blown areas toward the right side of that photo that should probably be worked on to get some other folks' supporting votes before it's nominated here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good one, could say normal picture (like non HDR) --Mile (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Mile, it's indeed a HDR. --Poc o² 18:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poc Saw it before on name. Suppose lack of lights helped you here. Otherwise i checked whats with your Canon, DXO and users are saying worst red channel - my main oppose for your HDRs. --Mile (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One would wish for a picture of the Roman Colosseum to be this good ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, Diliff's image is quite outstanding... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Falbisoner: Thanks! I knew this reminded of another image we had ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- anjaz (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coriander Seeds.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 20:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by Sanjay ach -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive larger-than-life closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 23:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ricksha Driver and Vehicle - Old City - Dhaka - Bangladesh (12850561743).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 19:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by User:Adam63 - uploaded by User:Adam63 - nominated by User:Adam63 -- User:Adam63 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:Adam63 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Muslim Woman on Street - Sylhet - Bangladesh (12968288153).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 19:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by User:Adam63 - uploaded by User:Adam63 - nominated by User:Adam63 -- User:Adam63 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:Adam63 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl with Water Jug - Rangamati - Chittagong Hill Tracts - Bangladesh (13240829234).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 19:48:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by User:Adam63 - uploaded by User:Adam63 - nominated by User:Adam63 -- adamjones.freeservers.com (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- adamjones.freeservers.com (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bell in Japanese Garden NBG 100 crop LR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 15:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Japanese Bell in the Japanese Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. Peace. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FYI, the cache seems to have trouble. Please ensure you're looking at the latest version. Peace. PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting motive, well balanced and amazing colors, especially the rusty brown bell. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has an enchanting Zen-like ambiance. HalfGig talk 03:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per HalfGig. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Berliner Dom von Humboldt-Box.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 12:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info This image is stitched out of 77 single images. The nominated result has a final resolution of 301 megapixels. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 12:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support obscene!! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive! --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe my connection isn't fast enough for the largest size to work for me (it won't completely download in the ZoomViewer), but I've seen enough to see that this is amazing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow!--Ermell (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would make a devilishly hard large jigsaw-puzzle. :) --cart-Talk 10:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful, as usual -- Thennicke (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pardon my French but this is f**ing AWESOME. :) Truly worthy of the designation "one of the finest images on Commons". #masterpiece. --Peulle (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gondorf, der Oberburg Dm foto8 2017-06-01 12.53.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 20:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Michielverbeek - uploaded by Michielverbeek - nominated by Michielverbeek -- Michielverbeek (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Houtzagerij Sagi Tschiertschen 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 07:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Sawing machine.
Info Sawmill Sagi Tschiertschen. sawing machine. For me, this picture is nostalgic memories of the middle of the last century. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I sort of see what you were seeing, and I love the texture, but on the whole it just doesn't feel like an FP for me. Some of the closeups in the annotations might have a chance, though. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 22:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My feeling is that this is different, good and featurable, but for whatever reason, the log that's cropped in half inordinately bothers me, although I suppose I could think of it as metaphorically sawed. If you cropped it out, I'd have to see what effect that had on the rest of the picture, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for your comment. I cut the picture a bit. For me, the picture breathes the atmosphere of the past. Because I have experienced that time as a child. The stellage left also matches that image.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Support this version, and thanks for the crop. You might want to ping other voters about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prismo345: {{ping|@PumpkinSky: @DerBorg: @Daniel Case: @HalfGig: @Johann Jaritz: Photo little bit cropped on the advice of Ikan Kekek. Thank you for your advice Ikan Kekek.--Famberhorst (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely better. Good catch Ikan. PumpkinSky talk 13:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the info ;) Prismo (talk. | contr.) 20:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All good now. --cart-Talk 10:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:National Gallery at dusk, Canberra ACT.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 03:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Architecture
Info I've nominated this image before but the processing was terrible; so I have gone back and redone it.
Info All by me -- Thennicke (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is an excellent architecture photograph, complimnts.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't find the other one but ... I sort of remember liking that one, so I like this one too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the processing history. The old one had a halo that was caused by a slider in darktable that I didn't realise existed at the time :) -- Thennicke (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would have cloned out the stars --Llez (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paesaggio marino a Mindanao, Filippine, con bassa marea.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 08:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Mindanao, Philippines: tide is low, sunset is approaching and a dog is roaming arund serching for food. created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a lovely scene and very aesthetic, however there are a few things that should have been found and corrected at QIC. The horizon is tilted, there is a bit of vignetting in the photo, some violet fringing and it also seems a bit overprecessed and not very sharp. I don't know how much of this can be fixed though. If some of the terms used in this review are unknown to you, you can read about them at COM:PT. --cart-Talk 17:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice photo but image quality is a bit low and I think the dog is superfluous. --Laitche (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For me, this has wow, and I find the composition special and pretty comprehensive, with the dog being the focal point in the middle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks like tilted CW, the sharpness could be improved and IMO there are CAs at the lights. Please try to fix this. --XRay ^talk 06:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Love the shot ... it's another one of those of what I call "Clocks" pictures (as in, you look at it and you can hear that piano riff). But the shallow depth of field shows ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, please sign your vote to make it valid. --cart-Talk 10:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. See what happens when you do this late at night? Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good idea. A pity about the sharpness. Yann (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dovresti concentrarti più sulla qualità o alternativa sul fattore WoW altrimenti questi ti massacrano --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful beach scene if one after close inspection has found out that it is not a sea monster but a friendly dog. I consider the partial blurriness as part of the composition.--Ermell (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Riksdagshuset Parliament House Kungliga Operan Stockholm 2016 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 06:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
Info Riksdagshuset (Parliament House) in Stockholm, with the Kungliga Operan (Royal Swedish Opera) in the background. C/u/n by — Julian H.^✈ 06:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 06:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I like the light. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to support this image but it needs perspective correction as the buildings are evidently tilted to right (please see the notes).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: I have checked again quite carefully and both the right and the left end of the parliament building appear to be perfectly vertical. — Julian H.^✈ 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Parliament House and the buildings to the right of it look fine, but those on the left side are leaning to right (please see the notes). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: I see what you mean, but I can't really do anything about that, sorry. It just appears to be that building leaning. I don't really see how else a part of the building would be leaning and another one wouldn't. Any correction that I would apply there would mess up every other building. — Julian H.^✈ 19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 16:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it'd have been better without the slight tilt, but this is still very beautiful and worth supporting. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:United States President Barack Obama bends down to allow the son of a White House staff member to touch his head.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 13:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info This photo was taken in May 2009 and in all the articles written about Pete Souza's new book "Obama: An Intimate Portrait", this is an image the picture editors choose. The composition isn't perfect (the boy's dad's head is cropped), the focus isn't perfect (slightly back focused), but Souza only had time for one click and fortunately froze just the right moment. A photograph isn't just about technical attributes. The little boy asks "I want to know if my hair is just like yours". You can read the full transcript in this NY Times article, and Souza's own opinion of and story behind the photo on p38 of his book (currently being shown on his web page). Whereas most photos hung in the White House are rotated every few weeks, this one was kept up for three years. Its removal prompted protest from staff who regarded it as an important stop when taking people on a tour of the White House. So it went back up again till the end of Obama's term in office in 2017. The image shows the achievement of a black man in America and possibilities open to a black child: is he just like me; could I be just like him? It also shows the most powerful person of a most powerful nation bowing to a mere child and permitting intimacy. Souza took 1.9 million photos while following Obama's presidency, so I guess a few of them should be worth featuring! Created by Pete Souza - uploaded by O'Dea - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with you. Quite a nice illustration for "Head of State". ;) Yann (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is not FP JukoFF (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- JukoFF, the rules at FPC require an explanation for an oppose vote. Simply saying "is not FP" is not a reason. Please note the FPC criteria include "Symbolic meaning or relevance" and that for FP wow factor can overcome technical shortcomings. This has become a historically important photo by a notable photographer. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The photo is very, very, very poor quality, very bad focusing, cropped heads, blurred faces. Do not understand the uniqueness of this photo. Or do you think that this is a random photo and it was removed from the first and not the tenth attempt? JukoFF (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Souza wrote: "It happened so fast. I clicked just one picture". The aperture of f/2.8 does not permit much focus range, and the focus is more than acceptable for many print sizes. He also writes "Later, when I saw the picture blown up, I knew it was special". I suggest you buy a book of Magnum photos, many of which are regarded similarly as classics that make other photographers envious, and you might realise that most of them are really nothing special technically, with all sorts of focus, exposure and composition shortcomings. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unusual situation worthy of a feature. Trust a kid to surprise everyone. :) I'm also intrigued by the bent paper clip on the Resolute desk. --cart-Talk 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Croped head of person on left is very disturbing. At least photo cut have different crop to avoid that. --Mile (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I visited an exhibition on Martin Parr's work last week. Barely any picture of his would survive here on FPC. Which is both sad and intriguing... for us. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The president's face is out of focus, not a very good photo - I expect better from a professional.--Peulle (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Come on, folks! This is a historic, iconic photo, and you're complaining about trivia? So what that it has technical shortcomings? This wasn't a posed photo - either you get it or you don't. You might as well nitpick to death the photo of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon if you're just going to ignore the historical and societal importance of a photo like this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition is just bothering me too much, even if it is a nice moment. I think this one is just as humbling/cute, and much better technically, so I'm judging against that very high standard -- Thennicke (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That one has nowhere near the meaning or historical significance of this photo, as described above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thennicke (and others) you can't judge this against a posed photo, or against our other people photos taken in a studio or outdoors in bright light. This is one of those images, as Ikan puts it, of "historical and societal importance", and for that reason the technical aspects are just irrelevant. I have no doubt this photo will remain significant, as the symbolism is just too high. We are enormously lucky that Sousa's output is copyright-free, most other countries would have this image heavily licenced and making pot loads of money. Comments like "not a very good photo" or "very, very, very poor quality" are not only wrong but a sign you aren't really looking properly. When the world disagrees with you, and news photo editors all over the world love this image, it is time to re-evaluate your personal criteria for what makes a great image. The bit you all praise at FPC, sharpness, exposure, that's the bit done by Nikon and Canon and Sony, and frankly we don't deserve any praise for that. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the world does disagree with me, but that doesn't make me wrong - looking at an image is a subjective thing, and I'm not feeling the "wow" - just another picture of Obama to my eyes. Perhaps I needed the backstory or something before I looked at the image, so that I came to the task with preconceptions (and that's not intended as snarky). I agree that the story behind it is nice, as is the symbolism, but I am not judging this image from the same perspective as a magazine publisher or a news outlet. Yes we are lucky to have this image freely-licensed. But I hope you can see my opposition as legitimate by the standards of this particular forum - and no, I am not a pixel peeper, as you might've noticed; I admit to often reviewing images merely from the thumbnail. Arguments from authority don't impress me; there are plenty of "famous" photographs that would be rightly criticised here. Fame is often different from wow. Although I can see why you would nominate this if it is trending at the moment, and sorry for what might seem like a harsh opposition. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And can I add that there is a political dimension to this; I don't think the same image would have been nominated here if it was Donald Trump in the frame. There is also a political element to what is considered "historical" and what is considered otherwise. I think it is best to respect peoples' differing opinions on this matter in an otherwise "apolitical" space. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't nominate it because it is "trending at the moment", the photo is eight years old and was viral 5 years ago. The only reason the photo is getting current coverage is because of the 1.9 million photos Sousa took, this is one of handful that picture editors (and Sousa himself on his own web page) have selected as among the best. Yes there is politics about race, which is part of what makes this photo historically important, and part of what makes this photo possible is how accessible Obama was. But there are 101 reasons why you wont ever see a similar photo of Trump, and they are nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the kind of guy Trump is. Well, if take a photo of a person, aspects of that person come out, and we're seeing that here. That's what makes a successful photo. In contrast, Trump's recent photos have all the charm of a school photo. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, trending 5 years ago - my mistake. Yes this image shows Obama's personality, but so does the other one, with much better image quality. All I'm trying to say is that we've got 2 FPs featuring Obama already, zero of Bush and zero of Trump, and that reflects not the photographic merit of the images, but whether we as a community consider them "historical" - it's a question of values, otherwise we wouldn't see them nominated in the first place. To elaborate on the point, 3/5 of the images in the 1990-now section are of 9/11 (with another in the unsorted area). Our community chose to nominate those images, and that shows what they care about. Obviously there is bias in this community; most of us are westerners and so forth. What I am saying here is that the "it's a historical image" argument bothers me when we already have such a bias. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Focal point is on the desk, of camerman with 1.9 million shots !? Lot of profs are using Auto mode, which can be much more clever than a man. For more see Do professionals use auto mode?. Its still too ordinary shot. If this would be JFK in Dallas in 1963, that would make much more sense. Otherwise i saw many more similar videos of Trump than Obama, and if someone made shot here we go. --Mile (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Colin and Ikan. Yeah, maybe it could be better cropped in, but photos like these, as Souza, just happen, and you either get them when they do or you don't. The bad crops and poor focus at left are necessary to make this point that this just up and happened ... they emphasize the spontaneity of the event depicted. Daniel Case (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice snapshot, the kid's eyes over Obama's head simply catch ours :) --Selbymay (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For others --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Prismo345 (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe not the best photo ever taken but if lack of "wow" can be a reason to oppose, my seeing "wow" is enough to justify. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The focus is unfortunately on the desk but the picture is good enough to endure this.--Ermell (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've refrained from opposing images for a while, but here I do have a strong reason for it. Apart from the multiple quality issues that even the nominator has pointed out, the image has no educational value. The explanation that the image "shows the achievement of a black man in America" is very abstract and unnoticeable at first glance. This is undoubtedly a funny image with interesting history and some social impact, but this is definitely not what FP is all about and there is no room for me to make concessions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril, you have trimmed the full statement I made about the image (which is merely my own interpretation, one of many possible): "The image shows the achievement of a black man in America and possibilities open to a black child". That the image has a back-story "Is my hair the same as yours?", tells me this is a story-telling image, and not merely something photogenic. See this for details about a form of educational publication where image+story are absolutely intertwined. While our boring photos of landscapes and buildings stand alone, the very best educational images ever produced all have a story behind them. Unless one is so out-of-touch with current affairs over the last 10 years, I think most of our readers would recognise Barack Obama and know he is the first black president of the USA. So I think it is stretching things a bit to claim the message here is "abstract and unnoticeable". Your claim "the image has no educational value" is really quite amazing. Do you think nobody writes educational pieces on black equality in the USA, or that nobody writes educational pieces on Obama's character, which included being a very family-friendly personality? I could keep going... there are loads of educational uses for this image. I guess all the newspapers around the world, who have used this image, found nothing educational to comment on it? Is it just a funny cartoon? FP is about "finest on Commons" and that is more than pictures of landscapes and famous buildings. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kiril, just Google "I want to know if my hair is just like yours". Dozens of newspaper articles from 2012 when the NYTimes interviewed the family, many of the articles wrote about race and Obama's presidency. Similar when The Grio re-interviewed them earlier this year. The google results also includes several books on racial issues, all citing that photo and the story behind it. We have here one of those special educational images that not only document a story/person/event in a special way, but the image itself becomes a story in itself. It is almost certainly to be included in any biography of Obama and any extensive discussion of race in the USA. I don't think any of us could say our FPs have the same unique educational value at all -- ours are all quite replaceable with numerous other similar images. -- Colin (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone can have own interpretation of what story does this image tell. The notion of "black equalty in the USA" is something that I cannot recognise here at all because that would have properly worked had there been a "white" president in this image. I also don't think that this breaks any social equality barriers either with all people being well-dressed in a presidential room. The missing value here that could have made that interpretation easily noticeable lies in the lack of contrasting elements. I would have assigned great educational value to an image depicting the motion from the interaction between a well-dressed billionaire and very poor people in a ruined village or social shock from extremely poor people accessing tecnological gadgets for the first time. Unfortunately, this has nothing to offer of it, no matter what the general public says about it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand your argument at all. Not one bit. It's like you are trying really really hard not to get it. It isn't people in a room, this is the president of the USA, a black president, in his office, bowing to a child and letting them touch him. Which part of that is not just a wee bit unusual given the history of the US, or indeed, any first world western democracy? But importantly, we aren't really here to judge if you personally have no educational interest in the picture, but whether others might find an educational use for it. And is most certainly has, and here it is most certainly free for anyone to use. -- Colin (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image has no educational value? I mean, if you wanted to argue that Commons should do away with educational value as a criterion, that's one thing (though not something to argue in a nomination thread), but arguing that this image has no educational value is just so absurd that it makes me wonder whether anything else is behind the statement. I have to agree with Colin's comment above. It's a pretty restrained response to the stuff you wrote above, and I'm restraining myself, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, well you know me, "restrained" is my middle name :-) -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, like it or not, this image does not have any educational value for me. After all, it's just my subjective judgement that you don't need to agree with and something that you're not going to change. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: whether it has educational value "for you" is irrelevant. Putting one's Wikipedia hat on for a moment, it only takes to briefest research to demonstrate multiple reliable sources regard the image as having educational value. It is already being used educationally. So that's simply a fact and doesn't require subjective opinion to guess whether perhaps in future someone somewhere might have an educational use for it. It is of educational value. Fact. That is all that matters. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and what goes into your "subjective judgment", I probably would do best not to imagine, but I've lost a lot of respect for you, and I'll leave it at that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may post millions of sources with explanations of what this image really means and how big its "educational value" is, but it's completely irrelevant for me to make own assessment of it as a piece of art. Art is all about "subjective judgement" of its value based on how it articulates beauty and emotions, whereas the position of arguing against someone's assessment with some general opinion just kills the artistic spirit. I may be the only person in the world to assess that a book, painting, musical composition, film, photograph or any other piece of art has or hasn't any educational value against the prevalent opinion by the critics and the least that those who don't agree with me can do is to respect my opinion. Finally, art is different from science in recognising educational value. Unlike theories, which explain the nature of the things in a technical way and provide a relevant learning resource equally for everyone, pieces of art distinguish in that they invite personal thinking on whether there is potential for relevant learning or not.

I respect your intentions and encourage you to do whatever you want, but please stop wasting my volunteer time counterproductively. I'm here to contribute to the project to the best of my abilities and not to debate with users about my every single comment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril nobody is forcing you to comment, so it isn't valid for you to complain about wasting your time. If you want to post comments about your opinions here, then expect them to be challenged. If you don't like them being challenged, don't post, or at least unwatch afterwards. One last time to clarify. We often have to judge if an image here has the potential for educational use, and thus be "in scope". While the image isn't actually being used, that remains a judgement call and open to subjective opinions. The moment an image gets used on Wikipedia, Commons regards it as "in scope" because the educational value of an image is no longer a judgement call but a hard fact (the image is used on two articles). And when we go outside of Wikipedia, we see the image is being used educationally widely. It's like having an argument, today, about whether Trump could be president of the USA. He is the president of the USA, so anyone offering a personal subjective opinion to the contrary, just looks really really odd. The image is being used to discuss issues of black equality in the USA and aspects of Obama's presidency, regardless of whether you think it could not do so. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cropped head is a instant oppose for me. -- Pofka (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ermita de San Roque, Mantiel, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-03, DD 37.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 20:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Hermitage of St Roque, Mantiel, Province of Guadalajara, Spain. The hermitage, of late Baroque style, was erected in the 17th century by the inhabitants of the village to protect themselves from the the plague. All by me, Poc o² 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - My reaction is that the bushy trees to the left, which are taller than the hermitage, and the rather featureless sky don't make this a great composition. They're there, so it's not your fault, but I don't see an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ikan, it was my choice to include those bushy trees in the composition, so it's my "fault". I mainly decided to nominate this image because it's the winner of this year's edition of WLM in Spain. Poc o² 08:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from me also; it's nice but just not nice enough.--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Well, that's all folks Poc o² 16:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:OudonMenhir 4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2017 at 12:17:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Selbymay (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Menhir from the neolithic, made of white quartz, set in the vineyard of Loire valley. The front view is to show the tilted monument in its environment under the dark weather combined with the "storm to come" light.[reply]
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is good, but the light is fairly normal, leaving me unimpressed. There's just no real "wow".--Peulle (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Selbymay (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Comment If someone stays unimpressed, make it B&W. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like this version better than the other, but I see posterization (?) striations in the sky in both photos. If you fix them, I'd probably support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Later I'll check if I can get this better but I guess I won't because I've edited the JPG file. @Selbymay: Would you like to try to get the image in B&W? Sorry for my interfering here, but when I saw the image I thought that it could work this way. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Basotxerri: Thanks for your alternative but I don't find it better, I prefer to keep the colors & withdrawn. --Selbymay (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand your point of view. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad Kissingen Regentenbau Foyer 0417RM0625 -HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 20:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by me Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Prismo345 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty and well composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. I find this captivating. Excellent job. PumpkinSky talk 15:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Definitely worthy, although I think something could be done about that CA and slightly greenish color cast around the window at upper right. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the tip. I've actually seen this more as daylight, but without it it actually looks better. --Ermell (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 22:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its not so sharp, see small light bellow. Some part of luster is missing on top. --Mile (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Looks pleasant, however the sharpness of the luster definitely could be better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de María Reina del Mundo, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-12, DD 46-48 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 20:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Cathedral-Basilica of Mary, Queen of the World, Montreal, Canada. The construction of the cathedral, ordered by Ignace Bourget, began in 1875 in order to replace the former Saint-Jacques Cathedral which had burned in 1852. The building is a scale model of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome and the new church was consecrated in 1894. In 2000 the cathedral was designated a National Historic Site of Canada. Poc o² 20:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. You really help your nominations by providing background. Would you consider adding it to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: Done, that is not something I have to consider, but something I've always done :) I didn't manage in the last weeks, so I fixed that for my last 30 FPs adding the description in English and in my mother tongue (that's why it took me longer to answer) Poc o² 17:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the sleeping guy at the right, or just because of him :) --A.Savin 14:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 15:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support So that's what you were off doing during Wikimania ... didn't hurt that it was across the street. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: If I had visited this church or other churches during the Wikimania programme they would have been crowded. So I woke up earlier that day to be the first in Notre Dame cathedral and after that visited this church. I managed to be on time for the first conference that day. The say for evening shots. The best lighting is anyhow early in the morning or in the evening, so no timing issue here :) Poc o² 12:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you do PD then do it correct (pillars are not straight). Despite i dont like huge PD (circles of roof became elliptic) i would crop some above (anoted). You could retushe man out, so would be good FP. --Mile (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That person really looked like a homeless, why should I clone it out? As said, a pattern between my noms and your votes. That doesn't really speak for you. Poc o² 16:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thats the reason, if this would be someone praying that would be surplus. Now seems too odd, unless you try to show church as place where homeless sleep. I never saw that here. It speaks for me, sometime you have to put more time and energy into picture, to be true keeper and shot you enjoy while watching. I made retush, merely 5 min od edit. If i made few hours editions for many of them, i hope your "FP" is worth of that. --Mile (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The two persons are a bit disturbing, but nevertheless --Llez (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Makhtesh Ramon (50785).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 01:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makhtesh Ramon in Israel's Negev Desert, viewed from the top of Mount Gvanim. Nominating because I like the range of geological features (forms, colors), characteristic of the place. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Very beautiful, but quality is not particularly high given the moderate resolution, especially on the sides. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I could not bring a tripod and it was extremely windy up there (the "see how far you can lean forward without falling", hard to hear the person next to you sort of windy). I get what you're saying, though, and if I had a higher-end camera or took it from closer to the ground (or otherwise in less windy conditions), then the shot would likely have been better. Maybe if I go back someday. :) I'm happy with the result, though, and feel like it's still a good candidate for FP (we'll see, I suppose). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. IMO, nothing really wrong with the quality --A.Savin 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Alexander. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 03:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Weak 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality. --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 08:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because it is pleasant to look at and I keep comming back to it. --cart-Talk 10:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The noise is regrettable.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is not extraordinary in such a large panorama image. -- Pofka (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Pretty, but doesn't quite work for me as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santorin (GR), Fira, Drei Glocken von Fira -- 2017 -- 2589.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 05:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better than the previous nom. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very strange mix of different element and one too many. Either the dome or the cliffs should go. I get the impression of a collage rather than a photo. Sorry. --cart-Talk 11:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Either, but not both. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors (maybe low contrast), cross is to much on the corner. --Mile (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very strange composition. The blue dome is cut and should be completely omitted or enlarged. -- Pofka (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Sapün (1600 meter) via Medergen (2000 meter) naar brug over Sapüner bach (1400 meter) 016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 06:07:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural# Switserland
Info Mountain trip from Sapün (1600 meters) via Medergen (2000 meters) to bridge over Sapüner bach (1400 meters). Fascinating power acceleration in the Sapüner stream. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gorgeous. PumpkinSky talk 12:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trees covering the mountain. It makes the composition ruined for me. -- Pofka (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka. I love the depictions of rapid mountain streams and I think one of them will be an FP. It looks like this one will be, but I think we could find a more outstanding one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. Question: Which ones did you find better?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll have to look around. I'll say this, though: I've been paying close attention to photos of mountain streams, to try to find one I thought was an FP. I haven't found one that convinced me yet, but I think there will be more than one appearing on QIC, eventually. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turnau Hochanger - Hochschwab 20171014 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2017 at 11:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info Hochschwab (2,277 metres (7,470 ft) – view from Hochanger mountain (1,682 metres (5,518 ft)) near Turnau, Styria, Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful colors and textures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classical, but still very nice. --Yann (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St. Antony - Urtijëi - 14.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2017 at 15:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gorgeous colors. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful, great job! --Yann (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good pictures, but above all it's a very interesting representation of these multiple subjects. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly.--Peulle (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Cindy's Produce apples LR.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 03:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
8 varieties of apples at Cindy's Produce, and a pumpkin. Peace. -- PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your photo is so inspiring, that I had to eat an apple right now. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." And in the afternoon I will prepare myself a delicious pumpkin soup. ;-) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Glad you were inspired to eat healthy food! I LOVE anything made with pumpkin (no surprise given my username): pie, bread, muffins, soup, Thai curry, desserts, ice cream, donuts, etc. PumpkinSky talk 04:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Aren`t pumpkins a devine present of Our Lord to us humans? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - A pleasant spread and composition. Doesn't awe me, but I think it's good and pleasant enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. An iconic picture of American life, at least to us foreigners. ;) I would like it even more if you could perhaps remove that blurry orange thing top center, it's a bit distracting. This is the kind of good everyday life photos we need more of here. --cart-Talk 12:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @W.carter: I had to both smile and chuckle. I'm glad you liked it so much and think it's iconic, but I'd never thought of it as iconic; I guess because I see this stuff all the time. The content aware fill worked great. It's better than cloning. I've only used CAF a few times before. I don't use PS a lot but when I need it, it's great. PumpkinSky talk 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the picture. It's "stuff we see all the time" that needs to be documented too, although such subjects are always hardest to get "wow-y" photos of. That shouldn't deter us, it's worth all the 'opposes' when you finally get one right. :) --cart-Talk 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 14:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --The hook that hangs like a sausage on the right side of the picture spoils the composition.--Ermell (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ermell, just FYI, things hanging from posts, walls, and the ceiling are quite common in these sorts of places, at least on this side of the pond. IMHO the hook gives this a more rural character, which is what this is, a rural produce stand. PumpkinSky talk 17:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You mean it's part of the composition? For me, it looks like it accidentally came into the picture. The hook doesn't make sense because it could be a sausage as well.--Ermell (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, for FP i miss more apples here, they make low % of pic. --Mile (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as someone who lives in a major US apple-growing region, this is also something I am seeing all of the time lately ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mile -- Thennicke (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best lighting. The apples are in shade while there is a much brighter sunlit area in the background, so the colors don't really stand out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light and hook as already mentioned by others. -- Pofka (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Petit Journal Balkan Crisis (1908).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2017 at 13:36:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Cartoon
Info Illustration from the French magazine Le Petit Journal on the Bosnian Crisis. Unknown author - uploaded by User:Underlying lk - nominated by me: -- Peulle (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good nominee Peulle, historic. I would not say Bosnian Crisis, since Bulgaria went independent. Its more decline of Ottoman Empire, sometime called Sick man of Europe or Sick man from Bosphorus. --Mile (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's a fair point, but I called it that since it's the name of the file and also the term used on English Wikipedia.--Peulle (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I would strongly urge a file renaming, since this is not an image of the Bosnian crisis (how could that be captured in any one image?) but rather a magazine cover with a cartoon rendering of the events. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent, but I think I agree with Daniel about renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can look at that later (unless somebody else wants to take care of it). If you have any suggestions for new file name, feel free to put them here.--Peulle (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Dividing of Balkan; Bosnian annexation and Bulgarian independence (1908) or Balkan crisis (1908). --Mile (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Support Balkan crisis (1908) or Balkan crisis - cartoon of a journal cover (1908) --Neptuul (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle change the name after passed nominee, i think if you change now will be lost here. --Mile (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will; it's already been changed and it's still here. :D --Peulle (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 04:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wien Deutschordenskirche Innenraum 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2017 at 13:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Interior of the Church of the Teutonic Order in Vienna, Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its techically excellent but the missing top of the arcades give a sense of clautrophobia. Photogrphy must communicate an emotion, some "soul": having straight lines is not enough, or maybe it is enough if you judge photography as a geometric issue. The architect who designed this church wouldnt probably apprecite the top part is not visible here.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work.--Ermell (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Paolobon140's criticism is reasonable, but I support this photo for what's in it, which is splendid, and I think the form is fine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject of the picture, really, is the altar. It would be nice if the top of the ceiling could be shown, but even with our present-day photographic technology there are limits. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mariaburghausen Krypta 9244443.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2017 at 22:44:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish it could be sharper but it's good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would work very good in B&W, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support But: Crop at the bottom and DoF could be better. --XRay ^talk 08:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:All Saints Orthodox church in Suwałki, Poland 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 16:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not going to vote right now, because I think I may be overly affected by the dismal light right now, so I'll wait to be in a better mood, but I really wish you'd photograph this motif in warmer light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
for me this light is romantic ;) -Pudelek (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Understood, but now that I'm in a better mood, I not only still find the light dismal, but I think it doesn't contrast sufficiently with the church, gravestones, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This light would be fine if it were processed to use the full range of luminosity values - the picture simply isn't bright enough -- Thennicke (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although taking Thennicke's suggestion wouldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Quite depressing atmosphere, however it is balanced enough. Warmer light might make it too ordinary, not able to climb above QI level. -- Pofka (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan...I tried brightening my screen before I realized it was the image. Can it not be fixed with a level adjustment? Atsme 📞 19:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garaio - Embalse de Ullíbarri-Gamboa - Playa 12.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2017 at 16:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm aware that this is very similar to my two last nominations. However I think that this is more about lighting, clouds and textures, so I try this one, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great and convincing in every particular. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lightning --Llez (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gentiana acaulis (stemless gentian).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 17:38:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Gentianaceae
Info Macro shot of Gentiana acaulis, 15-20 mm in diameter. My work. -- Mile (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- anjaz (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trevi-Brunnen abends.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 12:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 12:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll support anyway - but see note. I know, all the masses of tourists there are a real pain in the a that can't be helped... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are we sure they can't be helped? Is the piazza closed or the fountain off at the blue hour before dawn? Even if the fountain is off, the photo would be better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried a photo in the blue hour before dawn, but then the fountain was not illuminated. Besides I think the tourists belong to this location. -- Wolf im Wald 14:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Lack of illumination is a big deal. I often find the presence of tourists just fine, but in this case, I'm feeling distracted by them. I'll live with the photo longer and see how I feel later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Crop it, I say. --Peulle (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have Photoshop, it would be better to crop a bit lower and remove the heads with the Content-Aware Fill tool. That way more water can be preserved; I think that would be better than just cropping. --cart-Talk 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I was only suggesting an alternative method to get more water if it was cropped. It was not an argument for or against the tourists. --cart-Talk 10:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this realistic presentation is excellent. The tourists belong to Rome and especially to this fountain. To get a "clean" picture you would have to remove the scaffolding and the electrical wiring in the upper left corner. And what happens to the people on the right and left?--Ermell (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am in agreement with both cart and Ermell. On the one hand the people's heads are a distraction. On the other when can you shoot this picture without anyone there? And who would deny that tourists are part of the Trevi experience? I like that we can see a couple taking a selfie. But then they are distorted, as well. I guess I would have to see one with the people edited out per cart's suggestion to know whether I would like it better. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Please don't try to erase the tourists, it's a great addition to the fountain. We don't always need "clean" pictures. This one is really great with the tourists. --Selbymay (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Till wires removed. Otherwise fine image, i wouldt remove tourists. --Mile (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Selbymay + something magical, please don't crop. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Martin, Daniel, Peulle and anyone else interested. This is just to show what it could look like without tourists and cables. Myself, I haven't decided yet. --cart-Talk 21:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
well done, I've also tried that (privately) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for Mile --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The software processing is too far, I would like hardware effect. --Laitche (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture perfectly depicts a daily scene seen in Roma; the presence of people in the low part of the composition adds some "soul" to the whole composition. Well done.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry tourists. -- Pofka (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm landing on this side of the fence. The problems are just a bit too much for me to ignore.--Peulle (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry and deformed tourists. Removable by cloning out ! Wires too.--Jebulon (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally I think it still passes the bar -- Thennicke (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Diliff's photo is far superior, in my opinion, simply because of the lack of tourists in front of the fountain. The tourists in front of the fountain are really distracting to me. However, I like the lighting a lot. If you decided to crop out the entire front as far as necessary to eliminate our view of the tourists on that side, I would support. As it is, I think you can take a photograph of "Tourists in front of the Trevi Fountain" or of the fountain itself, but a photograph of both is not special to me, even if it does reflect what the atmosphere around the fountain is actually like. (One reason I've been there only once that I can remember.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle of Marqueyssac 16.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2017 at 11:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#France
Info created and uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 11:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doing some maintenance at QIC, this one stopped me in my tracks. I find the lines, shapes, light color scheme in spite of the dark cloud and general composition irresistible. -- cart-Talk 11:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The castle itself is covered way too much. The large tree is a main subject here instead of the castle. Pleasant colors and interesting grass waves are not enough for me, sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka.--Ermell (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please remove the unsharp bird (see note) --Llez (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --cart-Talk 18:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Pofka - not quite an FP to me, though a very good picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opposers; the lighting also looks somehow wrong, as if there was too much tonemapping applied -- Thennicke (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Distorting water reflections at Digermulen port, Hinnøya, Norway, 2015 September.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 14:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was computer generated. I'm very impressed! - Benh (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- anjaz (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - These great reflections make a relatively ordinary scene extraordinary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artistic conceptual design. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is different Poc o² 08:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Modern art --Llez (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different indeed.--Peulle (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh My! Absolutely yes -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 04:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Surreal. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Les remparts de Quebec vs Les Cataractes de Shawinigan on Centre Videotron 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 00:39:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by -- The Photographer 00:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't know, seems like a good image but, I do not like the lack of contrast, (or at least from my perspective)-- Prismo345 (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, the blurry guy in the right corner ruins it for me :( Renata3 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Renata3. I'm not sure what the solution was, but the blurry people in the foreground make this not an FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I do so badly want to like this for the color, the detail and the mostly successful attempt to "take it all in" and capture in one photograph the experience of watching a hockey game (see my own effort at same, but then again that was in a shopping mall). However, the distortion is still there, and I do sort of wish there had been more people there. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tree Shadow - Hitch Wood.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 21:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Someone built a ladder to climb this tree. I'm on a seat at the top, and my daughter is climbing up after me. The low sun and a wide angle lens enabled some fun with the shadows. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny, but no. The leaves on top are mixed up with the trees in the background. Also low educational value IMO. Yann (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question who define educational value? --The Photographer 02:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Yann, i would crop above, even trees. --Mile (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC) p.S. shadow[reply]
Comment Interesting composition. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because it's funny and nice composition with a nice shadow effect very educative IMHO (something funny can make learning procedure even educative and more enjoyable). We need more images fresh like this, new ideas, creativity and fun. I'm tired of feature every technically well-taken building --The Photographer 18:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Photographer. Wrt cropping, there isn't enough of the brown field above the tree shadow for me to crop it to be just field. The tree branches may be compositionally a little messy but they help indicate the photographer is up the tree. Of course one can find an educational use: shadows, Autumn colours, low sun, childhood fun climbing a tree-ladder, etc, etc. Perhaps not as educationally useful as a photo of Barack Obama ;-). -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Colin's explanation above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea is very creative and the quality is good but the composition is not appealing enough. The upper part of the image with the cut branches, the narrow layer of sky and the tilted trees near the top-right corner spoils it. I know it was very difficult to make any shot from that position but sometimes it's not possible to take an FP.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young White Necked Heron.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 14:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created and uploaded by Kasia-aus - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great light — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great bird, great foreground and background, excellent composition. Crop is a little close on top, but still an excellent picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan --Llez (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible! I didn't want to vote because looking at the thumbnail, I thought it was a painting! --Basotxerri (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basotxerri --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 20:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basotxerri. Great combination of neutrals. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:বায়তুল মোকাররম.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2017 at 08:39:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Bangladesh
Info created & uploaded by Jubair1985 - nominated by Selbymay (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC) This picture won the third prize for WLM in Bangladesh. As a jury member, it was my favorite. The soft light on the arches create a beautiful grey and white perspective well contrasted with the black silhouette of the man sat on the floor.[reply]
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this is a great photo but could you please remove/clean up the red CA lines around the lit openings. --cart-Talk 10:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't edit it. As it's an awarded picture, and already a QI. --Selbymay (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The CA should have been noticed at QIC but like many other with that, it slipped through. If you don't want edit this version, you could fix it and upload it as a derivative of the original. Regretfully, I will Oppose this version. Sorry. --cart-Talk 15:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pretty good composition, but in my opinion not good enough for weigh up for the CA and deteriorating quality on the sides.--Peulle (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition but cannot support as per W.carter. Its very easy to remove CA. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some fixing of the file (CA removal, fix perspective, NR, sharpness, contrast) just to see what it could look like and that version is here if it could be of interest: File:বায়তুল মোকাররম-processed.jpg. --cart-Talk 21:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition in my opinion - Benh (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. Outstanding composition and tonality; minor technical imperfections can be easily removed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a lovely picture, well composed and balances, pleasant to look at. Photography is not made of technial perfection, that is related with geometry. And photogrphy must not be judged with technicalities, Straight lines etc are important but cannot be the only and most important in judging a photograph. Technicality doesnt match photography which is a kind of art.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To cart, Peulle, Daniel Case, Sanjay Acharya, I have some difficulties to understand your opposition based only on such minor flaws as CA (not even mentioned in FP guidelines). Featured Pictures doesn't have to be Super-QI. It's normal that we have some expectations of quality here but the first one there should be on the artistic value not on the technical. If you can't appreciate such images without pointing out the technical imperfections, I guess you suffer a lot when you visit photo exhibitions & festivals. For me, as for a few I hope, the beauty and the magic of photography doesn't reside in absolute perfection. --Selbymay (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selbymay, these "Should we accept CA in FPs"-discussions flare up in nominations and on the FPC talk page from time to time, leaving none the wiser (example). Removing CA and other minor technical imperfections are not written in the image guidelines or rules of FP quality criteria but such corrections have been general practice / unwritten rule as long as I have been active here on Commons. The "no-CA-rule" was in fact the first rule I learned here. The written rules/guidelines have not been altered in a long time and does therefore not include many of the things that are quite easy to correct with programs and all these days. I guess the reasoning goes that if it's easy to fix something, why shouldn't we fix it so that FPs are as good as they can possibly get. We DO appreciate the artistic value in images and are not pained when looking at exhibitions. I have an equal difficulty in understanding why you are so opposed to make minor easy improvements in a photo to make it as good as possible, like any artist putting the finishing touches on a work of art before an exhibition. If you want to make an effort to change how photos are to be judged here you are very welcome to start a discussion about it on the FPC talk page. Who knows, maybe we will reach a conclusion this time... --cart-Talk 11:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cart Contributing on commons for ten years (& 3 days now :) I know how this kind of debate is recurrent and how the consensus is hard to find but I think it would be sad in the present context of technical overbid to feature only the top of QI. --Selbymay (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The CA is very minor and does not bother me. Of course I would support an alternative copy with the CA removed, provided this didn't harm the image quality. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Frank Schulenburg. --Laitche (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however I think that the name should be changed into English words as it is almost impossible to type for foreigners. -- Pofka (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this is a silly remark. An image from Bangladesh is quite rightfully named in Bengali. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as opposition, i find it much better in BW option, with some croping. Also seems tilted or need some PD. --Mile (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- anjaz (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin -- Thennicke (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, striking composition but the CAs (especially at the lower left) are too much --Llez (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Панорама на Лазарополе.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 15:36:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info The image received positive evaluation in the previous nomination, but the number of votes was not enough to reach an FP status. I think it deserves another try. Created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Prismo345 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question I thought that a renomination could only be done if the file had been altered since the last nomination. From what I can see this is the same version. I could be wrong about both things though. --cart-Talk 18:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, since I supported it the first time around, if this renomination is allowed (I think it is, on consensus-can-change grounds, but it does seem a little soon). Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much random green grasses, plants, trees everywhere. I think it is not extraordinary enough when these mentioned subjects are dominating the image. You should have climbed somewhere higher if possible. -- Pofka (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pörtschach Sallach Gartenweg 31 Villa Pauer SW-Ansicht 12112017 1947.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2017 at 23:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Austria
Villa Pauer (formerly "Schmidhammer"), built in 1913 by Richelmo Missoni on plans of architect Karl Wolschner, architectural style “New Objectivity” on Gartenweg #31 in Sallach, municipality Pörtschach am Wörther See. Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by PumpkinSky -- PumpkinSky talk 23:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm very impressed by the colors, sharpness, and contrasts in this photo. PumpkinSky talk 23:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very ordinary, no wow. Renata3 (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine technically, but I'm not seeing any wow factor to speak of.--Peulle (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is technically fine becasue the camera takes technically acceptable pictures, but thre is no subject here, sorry. Photography should bring some emotions to whom is looking at a photo, don't you agree? Find a subject first, and then take a picture:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I took the photo of that villa primarily out of documentary reasons, not for nominating it at FPC. It pleased to PumpkinSky, that`s why he was so friendly to nominate it. I had my concerns about it, if it might pass the critical eyes of the passionate reviewers' eyes. Obviously it didn`t. You wrote down the reasons, why not. Thank you for your reviews. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pörtschach Halbinselpromenade Wörther See mit Maria Wörth 19112017 2022.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2017 at 04:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a nice composition indeed but for some reason it seems like we have missed the chance to see a better photo. It might be due to the acid cold overall tone? Or to the too small village which gets lost into the composition? Or to the left part of the photo which is too empty? It might even be that if the foreground plants were occupying a larger section of the lower part of the composition, the general effect would have been better. Probably if the plants had the same size of the right part of the sky the whole compsition would be more balanced and the empty middlegorund (the lake) would be less "important" giving a better general impact of the photo. But im not sure:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you quite a lot for your special review and comment. You are right in all terms. Before nominating that photo I had precisely the same worries about it like you wrote them down above. In the future I will try to become more selective before nominating an image at the FPC. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dove on barbed wire on Angel Island (40067).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2017 at 23:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the strength of this image is as a good take on the "bird on a wire" scene. If it were just the bird, I don't think I would nominate as a species identification sort of photo, but as a whole I think it could be FP. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little less centered compo would make the picture even better... See note --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A wonderful photo. A pity that the head is before a dark green background and not before the sky. Also the roof or what this is in the right lower part is disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose: While technically excellent, the dark green background on the left makes the bird stand out less. A real shame... --Peulle (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, all. I'm going to go ahead and withdraw this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Punch Rhodes Colossus.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2017 at 15:26:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Cartoon
Info Created by Edward Linley Sambourne and published in Punch in 1892, "The Rhodes Colossus" is an iconic editorial cartoon depicting a satirical take on Cecil Rhodes' vision of British colonial rule in Africa. It has since come to represent "the Scramble for Africa" as well as Western colonialism as a whole, being often reprinted both in its time and right up to the present day, in various publications and school books. Uploaded by CountingPine - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good and certainly useful, but has the signature been somewhat rubbed out, and if so, should it be restored? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but perhaps we should search the Internet and upload better versions if we find them. I know there are some colour versions too, although I don't know if that was the original. Perhaps uploading this one would be better?--Peulle (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I am working on finding better alternative versions. Thanks for your time. --Peulle (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Langkofel - Puez - Sella - 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 08:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image but excellent notes on it, too! --Basotxerri (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basotxerri. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what I call a landescape image. Very nice. Atsme 📞 19:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 04:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tronc d'arbre aux Aresquiers.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 09:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. Perhaps it would a bit more interesting if you graduated the sky a bit more. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think the low angle makes this great. IMHO if it'd been shot at a down angle it wouldn't be nearly as good. PumpkinSky talk 12:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surely. --Laitche (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The layer of zirconium dioxide rolled into a cocoon.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2017 at 19:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Robertokamalov - uploaded by Robertokamalov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful and interesting but most of the picture making up the minimum 2Mpx required for an FPC is just black background. Not sure this is special enough to valid such a small file. --cart-Talk 22:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - too small for FP. But please nominate to COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per cart and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others: low resolution. -- Pofka (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a lovelu picture with a very high graphic impact: the black underground gives a great look at the whole compsition, where the object in the middle gets importance. Very well done,Paolobon140 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much empty black, and too small. Yann (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 23:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rådhuset underground metro station Stockholm 2016 01b.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 20:05:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Sweden
Info Rådhuset (Court House) underground metro station in Kungsholmen, Stockholm. An excellent FP of this place by Arild Vågen already exists. C/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 20:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 20:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support plenty of wow here.--Peulle (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite impressive on a large screen! Wow! --PierreSelim (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 10:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unnecessarily complicated gears a.gif, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 18:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info created by Jahobr - uploaded by Jahobr - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meshing together all of... -- Laitche (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a lot of fun. Is the file's pixel size an issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I read the rules, and unless there's a GIF exception, this doesn't come close to the required 2MP size requirement, Commons:Image_guidelines. Is there such an exception? PumpkinSky talk 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ??? The rule says "the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs". --Laitche (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation. Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: I'm not seeing that exception. You must be looking in a different place. Can you give me the link? Here: Commons:Image_guidelines#Quality_and_featured_photographic_images the first section is size and it does not have the exception you listed. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 12:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinSky: This page which you are seeing now. --Laitche (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: @W.carter: Ah, I've made the pages match so we don't have this issue again (hopefully). I'm gladly changing to support now as I think this is a fun, interesting, well done animation. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per the size requirement listed above. Please advise if there's an exception. We shouldn't be ignoring clear rules, this one is clear cut, it's not like trying to interpret "high tech quality". PumpkinSky talk 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most QI and FP gifs are well below 2MP simply because they are many pictures stacked. Most normal software can't even produce complicated gifs as big as 2MP and the wiki software also distort the color in large gifs when they are shown in thumb. Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Animated, one of the gif FPs there is only 280 × 233 pixels. This is actually a rather complicated gif, it is made up from 170 images whereas most normal good gifs are made up of 10-35 images. That is why it has to be made this small. When judging a gif, you need to look at both the "picture" like any normal photo but also look at how many images it is composed of and how it displays on the screen. The movement should be smooth and not jerk around too much. --cart-Talk 09:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Changed to support per my above comment. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Without the code, it would be just another useless GIF. But with the code, it is a great example, a lot of educational value. Yann (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. Impressive. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometime rules arent so important, like here. No use too see cogs biger. --Mile (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Yann. Without the code it would just be a fun picture to watch for a short time. --cart-Talk 09:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing!!! Love this complicated animation. This is of great educational value. Can you also add this to a Wiki page so others can benefit from it? --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 11:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Felder und Bäume -- 2017 -- 3220-6.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 10:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Dietmar Rabich - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Far more than an ordinary sunrise picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a lovely composition, where the three horizontal layers give a special touch. Colours and tones perfectly match the subject.Paolobon140 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 19:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rose Garden - NATO Vista Bridge 3 NBG LR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 13:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United States
Bridge from Rose Garden to NATO Vista at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 13:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours.--Peulle (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I first saw this, I thought: WTF... are the blue and green CA visible at thumb??? File:Smiley emoticons doh.gif Very lovely but is the left pair of street lamps leaning or am I seeing things? --cart-Talk 18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out emoticon per Jee because he says it's keeping the bot from closing this. PumpkinSky talk 03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The blue etc lights are there for a Christmas celebration they have going on. I'll look at the light poles. PumpkinSky talk 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The facepalm was directed at myself for having such a silly thought. :) --cart-Talk 19:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: , as far as the poles, after spending quite some time looking at this, I think it was a little of both. Using the guide lines you can turn on in Lightroom, it was off verticle a tiny bit now per the guidelines it's straight. I also think there was and is a little optical illusion going on because of the curved tree trunk that is right beside it. I've done what I can with this and uploaded a new version, but I have little practice at perspective fixing. @Johann Jaritz: , JJ, I know you helped me with perspectives once before. Can you please take a look at this? Feel free to fix yourself or advise me, whatever you prefer. PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: , @Johann Jaritz: uploaded a better version than mine. Please review. Danke sehr Herr Jaritz! PumpkinSky talk 03:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Con mucho gusto! You are welcome! ;-) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks Johann for fixing this. --cart-Talk 09:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are welcome too, W.carter. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image is not so sharp as it could be, but compo and scenery make it.--Mile (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mile. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fosso del Mulino, visto dalle mura di Pisa.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 15:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by DnaX - uploaded by DnaX - nominated by DnaX -- DnaX (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DnaX (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scusami ma sinceramente la composizione non la capisco.....oltre che tecnicamente non mi fa impazzire. In few words NO wow. Sorry. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree; I'm not seeing anything really special here.--Peulle (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose washed out in center and background. Try running your photos through QIC first. PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is NOT OBLIGATORY and non-binding--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Livioandronico2013: I know, but sometimes you get tips and suggestions that help you out. PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 23:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dike in Frontignan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 05:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very calm --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Poetic to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A sort of ne plus ultra quality. Daniel Case (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically well done, and nice colours. But the composition is rather central and there isn't a clear focal point/subject to draw the eye. -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are processing errors on the bottom left corner. --Laitche (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Laitche: No sooner said than done, I fixed that with photoshop. It was after the correction of the horizon, sorry I missed that !! . Thank you very much. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jovian Tempest.tif, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 10:46:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look at the size of that thing! One pixel equals 6.7 kilometers... Beautiful, like paper marbling. --cart-Talk 13:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Someday, we'll have a smoother image of this motif, but for now, this is quite detailed, pretty and valuable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amazingloong (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I donn't have much options but is ok ;) Prismo345 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 16:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Wooden cross on the ridge between Tguma and Präzer Höhi (2).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2017 at 06:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # Switserland
Info Wooden cross on the ridge between Tguma and Präzer Höhi. There is a lot of rain coming. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes. I was going to nominate the #1 version of this photo, but this one is also deserving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clouds aren't totally perfect, but way better than so many other pictures that would just have let them blow out completely. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Excuse me all, did anybody notice that a big part of clouds highlights are completely burnt and overexposed? Is this what you would call a techincally well taken photo?Paolobon140 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paolobon140 : {{Strong oppose}} is invalid here so I changed your vote to {{oppose|Strong oppose}}, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FPCbot flagged this as featured before Laitche fixed that opppose syntax. I've fixed the featured flag. PumpkinSky talk 13:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 14:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moon rise from the space station.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 02:21:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy#Astronomy
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Prismo345 - nominated by Prismo345 -- Prismo (talk. | contr.) 02:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prismo (talk. | contr.) 02:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply gorgeous! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral :-) I like the composition very much and I know, it's very, very difficult to take photographs like this. But the moon is unsharp und the resolution small. --XRay ^talk 08:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: are you kidding? The image is up to 4928 × 3280 px resolution. Prismo (talk. | contr.) 16:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But 610 KB. --XRay ^talk 16:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well do not tell me, tell NASA 😂😂😂 Prismo (talk. | contr.) 17:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info The size is no wonder as 70% of the picture is black, 20% white and the rest something inbetween. With so many similar pixels the compression rate of JPEG is very high Poc o² 16:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per XRay. Posterization lines, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. Sorry but not any reason for a blurry picture of moon when taken from Space Station. They have decent kit. Nasa also have a habit of over-compressing their photos they put on the web. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 03:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palazzina di caccia di Stupinigi con la cancellata, ingresso.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2017 at 21:28:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing castle behind the fence - Benh (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. There might be a way to make the fence work for you, but from this angle, it's blocking things that are disturbing to me, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ dark, fence --Mile (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support More i look, more i am sure i was wrong. This work somehow. Fence, dark... --Mile (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you Petar, im glad you appreciate this photograph:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because it's dark and we see the fence and the castle. --Selbymay (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fence OR the castle, but not both like this. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like the composition with the fence! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the castle is a symbol for the rich ones hiding behind a fence --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too dark. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, like the fence but the clouds are too distracting. Renata3 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 03:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Øvre Stoppen (3).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2017 at 18:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Norway
Info Apple orchard in Lier, Buskerud, Norway, on a sunny autumn day, with the farm's access path leading up to the buildings. All by me. -- Peulle (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- but it might be worth trying to lighten the shadows a bit. HalfGig talk 21:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, the long shadows of the trees emphasize the dramaturgy. BRAVO! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) (Minor CA issues at the branches at the left.) --XRay ^talk 08:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Perfectly fine picture but I'm sorry, I don't feel there's anything out of the ordinary about the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. --Selbymay (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Yann (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What story does this photo tell the watchers? Photography hould tell a story.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:天津大剧院全景.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2017 at 15:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Architecture
Info created by 钱程 - uploaded by Xrdtj - nominated by Amazingloong -- Amazingloong (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amazingloong (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many technical issues: noise, CAs, bright highlights, perspective... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Basotxerri. Nice motif, though, so I recommend shooting another image of this one on a day with good light, in an effort to get a shot good enough for FP. You should try nominating it for QI first to gauge the level of quality.--Peulle (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a good image :) -- Prismo345 (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing image --Xrdtj (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Basotxerri. --XRay ^talk 08:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an excellent architectural picture with all the characteristics of an excellent architecural photo. Good lines, nice sky, excellent composition, Compliments.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:V Pískovně Praha 2017 8.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2017 at 10:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pictures like this should always contain a foreground, a middle ground and a background as shown, for example, in http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/1/1_L_gcgnxTlaypPtW_XI8Q109807/GW417H352 As you can notice you have a foreground here (some branches of trees) and a background with more trees but the middleground is completely missing: only a large portion of empty and uninteresting water (a small boat or a swan would hav helped..). You might try to approach these kinds of composition by dividing the frame in three layers as shown in the link and you will notice a big improvement in your compositions:-) Every layer should show something interesing.Paolobon140 (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Paolobon140, I appreciate your point and your standards, but I don't agree with your analysis of this photo. The middleground contains reflections in the water, and the composition works well for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality isn't the best, the colours and sky are washed out, and the overall composition with foreground branches is not eyecatching. Sorry --A.Savin 20:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --Peulle (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many leaves in the foreground does not make it a good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too high kontrast. -- -donald- (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Karelj (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kupoli.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 11:08:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Domes of the Sts. Clement and Pantaleon Church in Ohrid, Macedonia.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Darkocv - uploaded by Darkocv - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's possible that the crop on the right could have been better; I don't know, but in any case, I won't hold that speculation against what is there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition? The object is cut off. Renata3 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For above--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as with the above, I feel like the composition is a bit off. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad bottom crop and too much space in the top. Photo gives me the feeling that photograph did not look good to the LCDscren before shooting the pic --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yaroslavl ElijahProphetChurchInterior 7302.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 15:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Ludvig14 - uploaded by Ludvig14 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 02:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very colorful. --Mile (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arles - 2017-05-24 - Roman Amphitheatre - 3804.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 14:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Distortion and CA at right, but forgivable in a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 17:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fulton Center skylight (91420).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2017 at 08:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 08:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Was exploring lower Manhattan the other day and came across this great skylight structure in the Fulton Center train station. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 08:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool and already ticks the box for me, but if you want to improve further, you could clone out the small spots on the ceiling.--Peulle (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But: Please remove green CAs. --XRay ^talk 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peulle and XRay: removed little spots on the glass, removed some green CA. new version uploaded. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Rhododendrites Very nice shot. Rokinon, Samyang or some other ?! On E-pl5 i had shake problems sometime, do you have Anti-Shock mode here ? Image is clear.--Mile (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @PetarM: Thanks! The lens is this Rokinon wide angle. It's good for the price, though I've had pretty mixed results with it. Honestly I'm not sure about anti-shock mode. I know that there is an "image stabilization" feature, but I have not ever changed it. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support // Martin K. (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- OMG!!!!! Prismo345 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture, if it had been symmetrical I would have rather said "superb" Poc o² 16:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Het redden van vee in het overstroomde gebied-138836.ogv, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 18:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info - uploaded by 85jesse – nominated by Jan Kameníček -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is an excellent contribution to the Commons media library. Whenever I see old videos and images like these I am reminded how rare these media were so many years ago. Nowadays everyone has a camera but these glimpses into the past are rare. The emotional impact is increased further when you realize that most (if not all) of the people you see here are now probably dead.--Peulle (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 85jesse (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Really interesting film, to be sure, but could it be restored? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly, but I'm not sure it should be. The quality is part of showing the conditions of the time.--Peulle (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the quality wasn't better when the film was new? I'd say there's no question it was. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Peulle. An unusual event documented on film at a time when such visual documentation was still itself unusual. Of both cinematic and historical interest. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martinus Rørbye, Loggia on Procida, 1835, NM 7402, Nationalmuseum.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 18:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Martinus Rørbye - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pure art, I love these kinds of images. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. PumpkinSky talk 03:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More dissapointed here, when i saw EXIF. This camera make 50 MPx, and 200 MPx on Hi-Res shot, great for museums, but it landed to around 3.8 MPx. And it cost around 30-40 kEUR. Terrible waste of money. --Mile (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support anyway --Mile (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Selbymay (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paphiopedilum Pinocchio (yellow).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2017 at 18:34:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
Info Paphiopedilum Pinocchio (yellow), Ljubljana Botanical Garden. My work. --Mile (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great plant! A bit more space on top would be even better, IMO, but this is not a close case for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Great symmetry. :)--Peulle (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive sharpness --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For above --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, it lack a bit more space on top. Note that with such a bokeh you can easily add a few space with photoshop. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I added some more pixles. --Mile (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture --Poc o² 16:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santorin (GR), Ia -- 2017 -- 2698.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 07:00:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 03:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 04:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wet-blanket oppose An inviting scene, but I want to see something more panoramic, and the mountains are too soft for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with blanketer, saw that before, its still panorama, all should be in focus. 2 shots and stitch. --Mile (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case and PetarM: Do you know the location? A panorama was not a good decision, it's hypothetically. You'll loose the background or include disturbing elements at the left and the right. The background shouldn't be sharp. The distance is about several kilometers, the railing only a couple of meters. --XRay ^talk 19:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay I wasnt telling it should be wider. There are two options, wide open f with focus just on fence (need better lens), might work better than this. Or 2 shots fence+mountain and stitched. I am sure would be sharper than single shot. --Mile (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yosemite Valley, United States (Unsplash).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2017 at 05:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Natural
Info created by John Towner - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful composition! :-) But, sorry, IMO too much noise. --XRay ^talk 08:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good impression, but that noise, grainy. --Mile (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks oversharpened, too. Perhaps you could get that better? --Basotxerri (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File size from orignal to modified version went from 39MB to 12MB. Processing seems to have caused these problems. Suggest owner go back to the original version. PumpkinSky talk 19:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read my comment on the newest upload? The original author deliberately added grain to the file, so I removed a significant amount of it. As you can see, it is still too noisy for reviewers, which means I should've been even more aggressive with the NR. Noise levels directly correlate with filesize, and as the author added grain to this, the filesize was enormous. In short - bigger filesizes are often not a good thing. What you're seeing here is not the result of a JPG quality slider being set to excessive compression settings. -- Thennicke (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Thennicke: No need to be sarcastic.PumpkinSky talk 03:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a deliberate effort to not come across as sarcastic there. Seems I failed, sorry. That question at the start was actually meant as a genuine question, not as a snarky attack. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fair enough. PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support So or so, grainy or not, the composition is great and the image itself convincing. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed both by original (grain) and Thennicke (contrast). Fog is a low contrast situation, so the result is really really unnatural. -- Colin (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I've had a think about this and I partially disagree about your comment re. contrast. I think you're right to disagree with me increasing the blackness of the shadows, because black is the absence of photons, and on a foggy day there will be no such absence due to all the reflected light. But I also think you're wrong to disagree with me increasing the whiteness of the highlights, because AFAIK the human visual system adjusts its perception of a scene to make the brightest point fully saturated regardless of the contrast of the scene. And when all three RGB channels are fully saturated we get white. In short, the image should always have at least one pixel which is white (unless there is a colour cast, in which case that pixel should just be fully saturated with that colour). I remember we recently failed a picture of a cloud because the blacks were too deep, but I think that such an image should always have at least one pixel which is pure white; #FFFFFF (in other words R=256, G=256, B=256). What do you think of this? Also this image is absolutely huge; are you pixel peeping when you say it's too noisy? -- Thennicke (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely an argument for "expose to the right" (while using base ISO) in order to retain as much information in the image file as possible, though this is done with the knowledge that one will pull the exposure back down again in post. If you are not using the full 0..255 range of a JPG, then whether "white" is 255 or 240 is neither here nor there on a mathematical information-retention level. Technically, the sRGB standard does specify luminance conditions for a technician in a TV/Film/Artist studio to sit there with their monitor at a certain brightness, with shades around the monitor, with ambient light at a certain level, and then to adjust the scene to look right -- that's how our TV programs aren't all mid-grey. The original image does actually use the full 0..255 but not in all three colours simultaneously. The red channel goes from 0..255, the green channel goes to 230 and blue to 225. On each colour, the bulk of the histogram only reaches 200. You can see then that since red is already utilising the full range, one can't simply raise the numbers on all three channels to reach your desired 255/255/255. Lightroom's exposure adjustment is not a simple "brightness" control, though, so it is possible to shift that histogram bulk higher up without blowing the highlights much more. Still, that sort of adjustment is an artistic choice rather than some scientific improvement. The books I have (e.g. The Digital Negative) suggest adjusting the exposure in Lightroom so your mid tones look about right to you, but that's also advice for a typical scene, and not always applicable to all kinds of image. How bright an image ultimately renders is dependent on this JPG value but also the viewer's monitor settings and the ambient brightness in the room. So I don't think I'm concerned about the RGB values so much as the over all high-key / low-key / high-contrast / low-contrast effect. If you look at the EXIF for the original, the author made some fairly big adjustments already. Vibrance +17. Several hue/saturation/luminance adjustments to various colours. Exposure +.25. Contrast +47. Highlights -8. Shadows +41. Whites +44. Blacks -35. Clarity +35. Sharpness +56 (which has added noise). So he's already boosted the contrast, globally, and with white/black adjustment and locally with clarity, all at very significant levels.
On your second point, yes I suppose if I downsize to 6MP then I can no longer see the added noise. And even at 13.5MP (4500x3000) the noise is not really apparent. The extreme sharpening (+56, no masking or other adjustment I can see) gives an illusion of tree leaf detail in the downsized image, but one can see in the 100% that soft foggy areas are full of "detail" that simply shouldn't be there. I don't know. If the noise was a consequence of lighting conditions requiring high iso, then I'd be more forgiving. As it is, it seems to be a bit of "fakery" to make the image sharper than it really is. I'd like to see what the original soft foggy scene looked like. So while the noise disappears on downsizing to perfectly usable levels, the fake sharpness is retained. I can't make up my mind on whether that's reasonable.
Wrt your adjustment. I think that is more extreme than removing a dust spot or two. Personally I'd be upset if someone did that to one of my images without creating a new alternative file and making the adjustment clear in the "Author" section of the image description. I know it is in the upload log, but that's pretty obscure. Clearly the photographer didn't just create an out-of-camera JPG, but took care to post process the image to their taste (whether we agree or not) which includes the contrast levels, the brightness and the amount of noise/sharpening they wanted for effect. What we have here isn't any longer John Towner's image. I think, for FP "finest", I'd like if we respected the creator's vision and offered our own variants with more separation than just a file version that hides the original from direct use. -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Thanks for such a complete response. I didn't check the histogram of the original image, so I didn't realise that the full gamut was actually being used. I agree with your reasoning and have reverted to the original image. Also how did you get that exif info? exiftool? I didn't know you could retrieve such information; that's handy to know. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the original version. Decided to forgive the over-sharpening grain, as it isn't really apparent even at 13.5MP downsized. I use Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer. You used to be able to link to the results page, but he had to change ISP and the bandwidth restrictions mean it's behind a captcha test. This depends on the user exporting from Photoshop or Lightroom and not removing the metadata from the EXIF when they do. And if an image has been through many tools, then the EXIF can become confused or incomplete. I don't think other tools export as much detail as the Adobe ones. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 13:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Decaying Photo of Freddie Mercury outside Mercury House - Stone Town - Zanzibar - Tanzania (8830680686).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 00:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Adam63 - uploaded by Adam63 - nominated by User:Adam63 -- Adam J. Jones (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam J. Jones (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great artwork. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info FoP Tanzania Not OK. --Mile (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- At a glance, it looked like COM:FOP said Tanzania was "ok" for FOP. Looks like that's only for moving images/video. Updated now. This image is also from Zanzibar, which apparently has a separate law creating a FOP exception for public works of "folklore". It seems doubtful this would qualify, unfortunately, though it's a good image. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very cool and artistic. I don't see how FOP issues could apply because the artist here is the mother nature. Renata3 (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we grant nature authorship, nature created a derivative work. Original copyright would still apply :P — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FoP issues, and missing categories. And blue chromatic aberrations too --A.Savin 20:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per A. Savin, although I added categories. The decay makes this a derviative work at most. Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mini pumpkins.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 05:02:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Drilnoth - uploaded by Drilnoth - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- How could I not support this? ;-) PumpkinSky talk 12:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not upload this. Drilnoth, the author uploaded it. If you look at the usage data, it's used on many pages. PumpkinSky talk 12:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I corrected the information about the upload. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 04:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry to dissent, but neither the composition nor the sharpness is outstanding enough for me to consider this an FP. Also, might some of the color be off? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good subject/framing but technically far too weak for FP. Quality not sharp even if downsized considerably. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 13:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose compo, too ordinary sorting --Mile (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Girls Strike a Pose - Busua - Ghana (4737816187).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 01:37:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by User:Adam63 - uploaded by User:Adam63 - nominated by User:Adam63 -- Adam J. Jones (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam J. Jones (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support African kids know how to pose, don`t they? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, i find this picture quite insignificant: the pose of kids is not funny, they are only makng some faaces; background is not interesting as well the general composition of the picture which,, in my opinion, is not telling any story and doesnt cntain any of what you call a WOW. Plus, the picture doesnt give any idea about the prticular or special environment where they live. What kind of emotion should this picture give to whos watching it?Paolobon140 (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 20:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality and no COM:Categories --A.Savin 23:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not technically perfect, a little grainy perhaps, but the poses are priceless and the joy in their expressions contagious. Very National Geographic. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Antwerpen, centraal station oeg7051 IMG 1179 2017-08-27 14.34.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 16:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Belgium
Info created by Michielverbeek - uploaded by Michielverbeek - nominated by Michielverbeek -- Michielverbeek (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like it, but I'm wondering whether you could play around with the lighting a bit, as it's hazy in places. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like quite an ordinary scene, the light is a bit boring.--Peulle (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. I sort of see what you thought you saw, but I don't think the angle works, and there's not really a lot going on in the lower two-thirds. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the bottom two thirds, the subject has all the charm of a multi-storey car park. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ausblick vom Gipfel der Kösseine.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 10:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View from the granite blockfield on the summit of Kösseine into the High Fichtel mountains. All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothinhg special, no wow,--Karelj (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sort of picture that I like to point people to to explain why I like hiking. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry the scene and lighting are unremarkable to me. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cardamom buns.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 18:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 18:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 18:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YUMMY! Do you have pumpkin flavored ones? PumpkinSky talk 22:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even the recipe is there, wow. --A.Savin 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the wonderful breakfast. My Chinese green tea is already served. All what was missing are these gorgeous Cardamom buns. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me...no wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see first time food to be photographed on the ground (on parquet), seems strange, unless you were presenting Arabs, Kurds or others who also eat on the ground. One part of buns is covered with blanket. I also miss some more exposure, especially above. --Mile (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No dear Mile, this is not photographed on the floor! This is photograped on the work table in my kitchen and the wooden block in the background is a cutting board that I have there. This kind of wood pattern is very common on the work tops in Swedish kitchens (Example) and also on walls (Example). I can assure you that most of us don't eat on the floor. :) --cart-Talk 09:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This must be some IKEA standard. But its still same, decorating isnt so nice (type of wood), seems like rombic Volvo car. Otherwise, eating on ground can be very good, and helpful for soul. --Mile (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are all from different cultures and have different views of what is beautiful and how things are done. We can't all agree on what is the best way, that would be boring. Btw, we use wood like that since we can get more material from a tree that way. It saves trees and is good for the environment. IKEA did not invent it but they are copying it. --cart-Talk 10:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tone color of the buns is awesome, the fold pattern of the towel/cloth gives is a gentle peaceful feeling and all is in sharp focus. PumpkinSky talk 12:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it -- Thennicke (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good thing I got to these after Thanksgiving ... a very appetizing image. Reminds me it has been too long since I stopped flavoring my coffee with cardamom (in addition to the dash of cinnamon and pinch of salt I now routinely use whether it's drip-brew or pressed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting, colour, sharp and homely presentation. I'm struggling a little to see how the cloth and chopping board might naturaly arrange themselves in this way. But it is far closer to what I'd regard as professional food phography than this sort of thing (shudders). -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. Most food photos are arranged/styled in some way to give the whole thing a pleasant look. The chopping board is actually where I keep it if I'm not using it, leaning against the wall. I use that small, old tablecloth to cover bread with as it cools after being newly-baked. So when I was done with the baking, I saw that I had all the elements needed for a nice photo. I arranged them a bit and set up the camera. It made for a better photo of the buns to have the cloth under and around them rather than over them. :) --cart-Talk 12:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--g. balaxaZe★ 13:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de Pula, Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-17, DD 65-67 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 16:38:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Blue-hour view of the free-standing bell tower of the Pula Cathedral, Pula, Croatia. The present-day cathedral came into existence through a series of expansions of pre-existing 5th-century religious buildings, whereas the baroque-stlye bell tower, located in front of the basilica, was added in 1707 and was built using stones taken from the Roman-built Pula Arena. All by me, Poc o² 16:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be copred above, to get clock on 2/3. Red is too strong again. --Mile (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: new version... --Poc o² 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know is its better, tower yes, but see sides, you added balcony on left, and part of trees on right. --Mile (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, Mile, I readjusted the crop on both sides Poc o² 18:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amazingloong (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would even left that balcony, if in full. Good anyway. --Mile (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Japanese garden scenery at Expo’70 Commemorative Park in Osaka, November 2017 - 146.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2017 at 10:46:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Japan
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very peaceful with a hint of koyo! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it very much, too. I especially like the stream, but all the elements are harmonious -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit too many points of attention in my opinion: the cloudy sky, the green trees, the white spot in the center of the composition, the green area at the right, the river and the grey area on the left: these are 5 different zones in one single picture. My eye roams around the pciture searching for one point of interest of the composition that cannot be found: the result is quite a messing composition. I always think a picture like this should contain not more than 3 points of interest where the eye can stop and enjoy the details:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about composition

Question - When's the last time you looked at a great landscape painting? How many points of interest are in this painting? How about this one? Complexity, well handled, is a great thing, not a bad thing. Moreover, what I feel you are really doing is criticizing the traditional Japanese aesthetic of what a garden should look like, the best to encourage contemplation, meditation and appreciation of nature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Answer In the painting you showed there are the three canonical layers which accompany painting since its origins: foreground with people, lake, trees; middleground with a hill and a castle; background with sky. I judge the picture, not the culture thta originates the garden and i think, in my opinion, the pictire is messy.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make clear that I value your ideas and participation. I think it's invigorating and helpful to this project. However, I don't think that merely because a picture has a foreground, middleground and background, that means there are only 3 points of interest in it. So our analyses differ. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you value my considerations about the picture: commenting on a picture is always interesting if the picture is standing enough to share some impressions about it. About foreground, middlegorund and background: photograaphy descends from painting and took much from painting compositional rules; actually the first photographers simply tried to transport compositional rules from painting into photography; and actually photography have few basic rules, but all of them are simply imported from painting: rule of thirds and rule of fg, mg and bg in panoramas are among them. If you notice the best paintings and the best photographs alwyas follow these 2 basic rules and the result is something our human eye immediately recognizes as "pleasant". It is due to our human way of dividing what we see in thirds, its something automatic. Of course, you can also decide to break the rules, but takes some extremely powerful idea:-) My opinion of course... then we even might talk about the influence of Caravaggio's paintings in modern portrait photography, but thata is something different...Paolobon140 (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My father was a painter who spent a lot of time explaining art to me. I never recall him mentioning a "rule of thirds", but he liked to talk about the linear arabesque, triangular shapes in landscapes, perspective (which I never really mastered seeing in detail), and relationships between shapes and forms, among many other things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another thought: There are many styles of painting. Traditional Japanese styles don't have the same approach as the post-Romanesque European tradition. I think it also pays not to impose European-style aesthetics on all photographs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sense of aesthetics is a product of the culture and traditions we have been born in, its not something you can easily change when it comes to comment on a photograph which follows some japanese sense of aesthetics. Im italian and im automatically seeing things with an italian sense of aestethics. And remember i commented on your pic by saying that in my opinion its a messy composition. I think "messy" is not influenced by any kind of specific culture. Messy is more or less the same all over the world:-) I find a wonderful sense of aestethics in the Beijing opera, even if i was borm with Verdi's opera. Beautiful things are immediately recognisable everywhere.Paolobon140 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Japanese, either, but my father loved and collected books of classical Japanese paintings. It's not at all true that there are universal, world-wide standards of beauty or appropriate artistic form, and your nationality isn't a bar to learning something about Japanese aesthetics, if you choose to do some study. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: I might have been influenced by this type of composition --Laitche (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 13:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support と 7 ... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, thanks. --Laitche (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works better in full-res. A little exposure compensation might have helped with the nearly-clipped gravel, though. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Musentempel im Herbst, 1710150958, ako.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 06:25:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info The so called "Musentempel" in the agra park in Markkleeberg (Saxony) on a sunny autumn day. I made another two photographs of the same motif (1, 2) and I'm not sure which one is better. I'm curious about your thoughts. All by me. -- Code (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Of the other two, I think number 2 is better. PumpkinSky talk 12:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Beautiful autumn colours, an excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see your work here again! --cart-Talk 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tourist shot...no wow--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot; good composition and colours, reflection provides the wow for me.--Peulle (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this is a touist shot, then clearly one of the better ones... ;) --A.Savin 23:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might be trimmed just a little bit more on top and bottom, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 16:9 crop works too. -- Colin (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- Colin (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 13:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and colors, wow ! Great water reflection -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 19:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:V Pískovně Praha 2017 7.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2017 at 12:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

]]

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, No. Just... No.--Peulle (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure why you think this one will succeed after Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:V Pískovně Praha 2017 8.jpg failed. The camera isn't even level. -- Colin (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Colin, and I also don't like the framing of this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adobes, Guadalajara, España, 2017-05-22, DD 63.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2017 at 20:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Panoramic view of the municipality of Adobes, province of Guadalajara, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. According to the 2016 census (INE), Adobes has a population of 42 inhabitants. As usual, the highest building in the village is the church, of Renaissance-style. All by me, Poc o² 20:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't decided on this one, though I enjoy the very peaceful atmosphere. But what's the little gray spot just above and to the right of the church's bell tower? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, the spot is gone. To be honest I cannot say what it was --Poc o² 18:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - It's definitely arguable that there are many villages like this, so if you're looking for a real wow of a motif, this arguably isn't one. However, it's pretty and peaceful, and the composition is well done and relaxing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like that it's on a rise. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bishan Int, Singapore (Unsplash).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 00:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by chuttersnap - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to know, what is shown on the picture and what makes its educational value. --A.Savin 10:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an aerial photograph of Bishan Bus Interchange as far as I can tell. I didn't take the image, I just think it is of excellent photographic merit. Educational value is totally irrelevant at FPC, but obviously it is an excellent example of aerial imagery and useful for the article on the interchange. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think educational value is totally irrelevant at FPC. Why do you think so? Also, do you think it would be OK to lengthen "int" to "bus interchange" in the file description? I didn't realize what word was meant by the abbreviation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what Wikipedia's FPC is for. Besides, every shot is educational in its own way. And it's not my image; if you want to nominate it for renaming that is your choice; I don't mind if you do. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want to edit the file description, which I could just do without your say-so, but I thought I'd broach the suggestion, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it. Feel free to make any changes if you were thinking differently to that :-) -- Thennicke (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd like to pursue the tangent about whether educational value is irrelevant at Commons FPC. Many people have strongly asserted that it's important, but none of them has spoken up in this thread. Perhaps we should discuss this on the talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I'm not convinced. Yes, it's an aerial photo of a bus parking, and a good one. But it's just not enough for FP. --A.Savin 20:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Doesn't abstract itself well enough. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benasque - Aigualluts - Llano 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 10:16:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
Info created & uploaded by User:Basotxerri - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the gradations of color and the curvy stream in this photo. I also like its irregularity and asymmetry. File:Benasque - Aigualluts - Llano 02.jpg, linked in an annotation on this file, is also a fine composition that might merit a nomination (if this one is successful). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Ikan, that was very kind of you! --Basotxerri (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like the Canadian Arctic landscapes I visited a couple of years ago. Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, I like your photo, and if you fix the dust spots in it, I think it would be a QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, it's sunny Spain --Basotxerri (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van Tschiertschen (1350 meter) via Ruchtobel naar Löser (1680 meter) 18.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 08:10:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # Switserland
Info Mountain trip from Tschiertschen (1350 meters) via Ruchtobel to Löser (1680 meter). The mist is lifting. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was reluctant to nominate this picture because I'm afraid people may object to the amount of road in the frame, but I think it's a great trees-in-fog picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor subject IMHO. Where is the WOW factor? Paolobon140 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: for me personally the WOW factor is the atmosphere. Walk in the path and smell and feel nature.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too ordinary.--Peulle (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --Karelj (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Poc o² 16:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Sure there are "trees in fog", but I don't think this is a great one. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me because of the curve in the road. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Felder und Bäume -- 2017 -- 3167.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 05:38:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for Wikipedia. --Karelj (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Karelj: Sorry, I can't accept the reason of your vote. It is not necessary to have any benefit for Wikipedia. Here is Wikimedia Commons, a media archive for everybody. And the benefit for Wikipedia is not part of the guidelines of a FPC. --XRay ^talk 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Karelj: Please have a look to Commons:Project scope: It acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects, but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose. And please have a look to Commons:Image guidelines too. Please add a reason for your oppose. It would help me and other photographers to understand why this photograph isn't FP in your opinion. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 06:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: Sorry for using not correct reason for oppose. But my feeling about this image is still the same - such photo is not enouht quality for FP. Technically pefrect. But I do not understand the reason for this nominatiom. I know, that you have a lot of FP on Wiki (some of them are also problematic from my point of view), but why this one...?? Three tree trunks cutted in let say 1.5 m height and nothint else? Maybe there is some small beetle, which is centre of picture and I do not see it (my weak glasses???)... I am sorry, but for sure I have no strong estetic sense, or how to call it, and only things which I feel looking on picture are: Have I enough wood for heating in my weekend house for this winter? and Is my chainsaw well adjusted for next work? So - no wow at all. --Karelj (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice light and ivy, but not special enough for FP, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems sort of Middle-Earth-y. Daniel Case (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kissingen Brunnenhaus Skulptur 0417RM0691.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 11:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info nominated by me -- Ermell (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing interesting, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Karelj --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the composition, but I'd feel a lot more relaxed looking at this photo if there were a little more room at the top. I take it, that's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - o.k. I pushed it up a bit, maybe that's better.--Ermell (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is, IMO. I'll have a look at this photo again tomorrow, when hopefully I won't be so tired. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting shot. Would say more charming shot. --Mile (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mile. Not a huge wow, perhaps, but good, pretty and well composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, excellent focus to main object, but no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprisingly symmetrical, but for the hanging plant tendrils. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lago Fallère, Valle d'Aosta (2415m) 002.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2017 at 06:17:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # Italy. Waterworks.COM:FP -->
Info Lago Fallère, Valle d'Aosta (2415m). Waterworks. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting photo, and IMO a deserving candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See the upper left corner... --Laitche (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Small corrections. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish the background was better, but at least that keeps attention on the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture. I like it --Harlock81 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schloss Falkenlust, Western Facade, November 2017.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 15:38:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info The western facade of Schloss Falkenlust smoothly lit by the setting sun. The Augustusburg and Falkenlust Palaces form a historical building complex in Brühl, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, which has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1984. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 15:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a wow-composition, but it's perfectly performed --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lower right parts of the building and the stairs are in shadow. It's not small issues for this kind of photo. I think it needs argument.--Laitche (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Laitche. What I tried to do was to get a good shot of the little palace not too long before sunset (i.e. almost during golden hour). The problem with Falkenlust is that it's a) surrounded by trees and b) slightly facing NW, giving the sun a hard time beating the trees, even in fall. ;-) So I hoped (I believe successfully) to compromise: while avoiding harsh, boring midday light that would have fully illuminated the façade, I went there significantly later but still early enough to catch enough light to avert really dark shadows. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean then if others are okay, I have no objection. --Laitche (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I suppose their clock it out of time. --Mile (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've read your remarks about the lighting challenges of this motif, and my reaction is: Not every motif can be an FP. Maybe this one will be, but while the Schloss is quite nice, I find the surroundings, and especially the dull gray foreground, boring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I even find something harmonious between the colors, light and shadows Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --There could be cut off under a piece. Famberhorst (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 13:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 16:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Езеро Мантово.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2017 at 10:19:44 (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) 10:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~No educational value~~ :-P Just kidding. Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good framing and composition, high resolution compensates for the slight noise and detail loss.--Peulle (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dried Star Anise Fruit Seeds.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2017 at 19:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by Sanjay ach -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanjay Acharya (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If majority back is white, you should cover black part above-left. --Mile (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess cant do much now. I had used two lights. One in the left and the second to the right. Its very hard to get the lighting perfect. May be I need to get one more light and keep it positioned directly up. Thank you for the suggestion. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geckos mating.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2017 at 03:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like it, but the photo is a bit small. Also, could you improve the sharpness a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but too unsharp for this small resolution. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry fo above --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: and Uoaei1, it's a QI already. So now the question is to know if the subject is interesting or not, I think.

No, I don't agree with this. The standards of quality for a Quality Image in practice are not the same as they are for one of the most outstanding images on the site, which is what an FP is supposed to be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Livioandronico2013: I don't understand, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is not sharp enough and the resolution is too low. Besides, the crop could be better. But the topic is certainly interesting.--Ermell (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Extremely rare close-up photo of a reptile penetration, so exceptional, quite impossible to obtain in normal conditions, especially when you know how wild these animals are, so educative picture, extremely explicit, quality okay (by night, with a natural light, through a window, of course not in the hand), and then, please explain how you would find better. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beyond the conditions for taking this photograph, circumstantial elements and the subjectivism expressed by the author. Unsharp and heavy color noise, exif image information is not present, low quality on image retouch on the subject animal border and the background, not show clearly that the animals are in the wild. --The Photographer 15:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No exif ? Old camera. Captivity ! Seriously ? - Basile Morin (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Basile Morin, please assume good faith and don't take the comments personally. Remember that when you post a photo candidature here you agree to accept criticism and respond politely. --The Photographer 15:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not quite sharp enough for me, and the lighting is not ideal.--Peulle (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Basile Morin (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evening creeping up on the old railroad crossing.gif, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2017 at 23:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info Compaired to many other gifs here, this is a rather timid and unassuming animation. It consists of only ten frames and can therefore be a bit bigger. The selective animation also reduces distortion of colors at smaller sizes. It's a way of showing how animation doesn't have to be very complex to add a nice element to a photo. The photo with dark foreground and bright background, is also "backwards" in reagards to how light is "supposed to be". That is done deliberately since it emphasizes the light signal in the building evening. (The posts and poles are just this tilted and wonky in reality.) -- cart-Talk 23:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 23:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is 1.7 MPx. Any reason for size ? --Mile (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC) p.S. I would do panorama here.[reply]

Talk about GIFs

Mile, it is an animated gif. Please see the info and discussion about such on this page/nom. For an animated gif, you get the right size of the file by multiplying the frame pixels with the number of frames used in the gif. This has ten frames so the actual size is 10 x 1.7 = 17 MPx so it's a rather large gif. Also, I respectfully disagree about the suggested crop, I like to include the whole structure of the crossing (you get a nice diagonal line following the tops of the poles and signs) and the sky adds a bit of drama to the scene. --cart-Talk 10:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cart I did never get Foveon size calculations (cant see EXIF, you bought Sigma ?). Crop is up to taste. But couldnt say for size. That in bottom is more "vectorized" shot of few colors, here is rasterezied shot with much more colors and isnt like schablone of cogs. I dont know if you made it out of video format, but can be shot in normal .jpeg --Mile (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I can't understand why the EXIF didn't show up. It was first done in Lightroom then in Photoshop from three original jpegs (didn't you read the file's description?) The entire EXIF is the same as in this file which is one of the jpegs in the gif. Not sure how to add it to this file though, help would be appreciated. The size is at the very top of what normal software can handle for a gif. I made it as large as possible without my program telling me the file was too large to be shown on browsers. Color always gets distorted when you turn a normal photo into gif since that format contains less colors, it's the price you have to pay for using that format. I hope you can see the signal blinking? That is the whole idea behind why I chose this format. --cart-Talk 11:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can put EXIF manually as i did on this .gif. What software did you use, i made this on Adobe, no problems with file size. I see blinking. With pano shot you move more to 16:9 (movie format). --Mile (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take care of that later when I'm home. :) Your gif can be larger because it doesn't have as much information (mostly black) as this one has. I'll see if I can play around with this a bit too. --cart-Talk 14:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, manual EXIF added and a new version with better sky reworked from the raw originals. I tried to press Photoshop to make a larger gif file but due to the amount of detail in the photos, it wasn't possible. I also fixed a cropped version from Mile's suggestion, but I will not offer it as an "Alt" since I find it boring and without charm. It just exists if someone wants to use it somewhere. --cart-Talk 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find cropped a lot better. I would support if in bigger size. --Mile (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good work, but I'm not really wowed; the scene is fairly ordinary.--Peulle (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and creative idea, nice lighting, nice colours. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not quite sure this works. The animation wasn't even obvious at a first glance. - Benh (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As much as I like this idea, per Benh it was hard to see what was animated about it. It might work if it were just the signal. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination That's perfectly ok! This was another one of my experiments here, a way of testing a small subtle animation instead of the usual all in spinning/pumping/moving we usually see in gifs. Perhaps someone got an idea from this and will present another better along this line. --cart-Talk 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ливада крај селото Манастир.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2017 at 17:31:47 (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) 17:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred foreground sometimes is OK but here it covers almost half of the image. But it's a pity because the colours are really nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri. I'd be interested to see what this picture looks like if you cropped out absolutely all of the grass, but I don't think enough would be left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, the grass is blurry, but is okey ;) -- Prismo345 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred foreground. Yann (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have enjoyed to see these purple flowers in the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Main Building of Nankai University 2015-08-04.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2017 at 07:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#China
Info created by Amazingloong - uploaded by Amazingloong - nominated by Amazingloong -- Amazingloong (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amazingloong (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose are you serious? Perspective correction? more nothing of interesting... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I uploaded a new edition without Perspective correction.Thanks.--Amazingloong (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - I think in this case, the photo is better and more interesting without perspective correction, but if anyone wants to do perspective correction and offer the result as an alternate, that would be worth looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand the extra value of this perspective disruption --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a new edition without Perspective correction.Thanks.--Amazingloong (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The perspective distortion is very disturbing here. In addition, the image is slightly underexposed. --Ermell (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a new edition without Perspective correction.Thanks.--Amazingloong (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see very little difference other than a desaturation that I don't like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems strange, like tilted --Mile (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special, and distorted perspective --A.Savin 20:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now because of desaturation. But I don't think you understood that people were calling for perspective correction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to check the dictionary to know the meaning of Perspective Correction.The Special noun in English is really difficult to me.I have do the correction，is it right?--Amazingloong (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would have to correct the perspective to have a chance to get supporting votes from more people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingloong, if you have any trouble understanding the photography words that are mentioned here at FPC, you can see them all and their meaning at this page: COM:PT. :) --cart-Talk 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Amazingloong (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Featurable for me if tilt and perspective are addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tianjin Grand Theater Concert Hall.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2017 at 08:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#China
Info created by 北京驱动文化传媒有限公司 - uploaded by Xrdtj - nominated by Amazingloong -- Amazingloong (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amazingloong (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting architecture and very well captured. The category should be Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#China. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. It is Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#China. Does FoP in China apply to this? Yann (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right on the category. I haven't checked on Chinese FoP rules. Might this interior be copyrighted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{@Ikan Kekek: My understanding from my own pictures in the PRC is that photos of copyrighted architecture of recent vintage are OK as long as the architect is attributed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's not clear that the architect is attributed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ 1,05 MB? Please upload an image with EXIF data and less artifacts. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 17:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Still problems with compression. --XRay ^talk 18:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's definitely an issue with compression; looking at the rows of seats, it's fairly evident. Not sure about that FoP issue, but I guess the file will be requested deleted if there's a problem there.--Peulle (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Peulle --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Per the other opposers. PumpkinSky talk 23:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Sorry, post-closing detected invalid vote per this discussion. Outcome will be altered to featured. --cart-Talk 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support technical issues not decisive, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Laitche (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC) _{Withdraw my vote, I don't mind the compression but the angle is not optimal, the organ pipes are blocked, etc. --Laitche (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
Oppose Compression. Yann (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Just too many clashing forms for this to work as an FP for me. Right idea but took in too much. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Albeck Seebachern Lärchen am Fahrweg zum Anderle Kreuz 22112017 2111.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 04:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This composition with the trees cut off doesn't work for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the close detail on the tree and the loping rolling feel to the photo. PumpkinSky talk 12:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per PumpkinSky, but also per Peulle. A good, sensitive photo, but not in my opinion an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you very much for your honest reviews. I imagine, it is better to withdraw. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 17:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 15.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2017 at 17:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # The Netherlands
Info: Ecological process This simple photo shows nicely how nature takes possession of the rotted, decayed tree. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, but I don't like the light. Do you have any photos of this motif in warmer light? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it-- Prismo345 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special enough. Yann (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really wowed. Also it feels overexposed.--Peulle (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to everyone for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milano, vista di tre quarti dal Corso Magenta.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2017 at 16:48:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info The church of Santa Maria delle Grazie (1463-1497), Milan, Italy, where The last supper by Leonardo is. Dome was designed by architect Bramante. created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wires. They may not be avoidable, but ... Yann (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed. They spoil the shot.--Peulle (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The church is also far from optimally sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wires are even a good reason for a Q1decline, so I don't support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lol. I will tell en:Fratelli Alinari that their famous picture of the same church is not a good picture becasue of wires http://images.alinari.it/img/480/AVQ/AVQ-A-003227-0007.jpg Paolobon140 (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides wires and technical issues, take the same image under a better lighting and cropping a bit tighter and IMO it might work. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark in too many places and the wires are rather distracting. HalfGig talk 21:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the wires as a problem only the framing. If you can't avoid wires, then make it about the wires instead. Here you got church, wires, street and building; too many elements. By taking a few steps closer to the church and placing the church in the lower right corner, you'd have got a cool photo of wires looking like they radiated from the church or a web in the sky above the church. I also find it too dark. --cart-Talk 22:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: with six opposes and no new supports in five days, this nomination has a snowball's chance in hell

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case This would have been removed anyway because of the other end of the "5th day rule":
"8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) 1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator)."

--cart-Talk 21:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Yes, I figured that we were getting there; just didn't know how far along (and I probably wouldn't have even noticed this if I wasn't trying frantically to catch up after Thanksgiving week. Thanks!) Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]