Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2019

File:Cream and red coffee cup-shaped balconies, Niimi Tableware, Kappabashi Dougu Street, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 01:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual and whimsical - this'll look good on the main page. Cmao20 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A touch of levity in this strict world :-) Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Indeed different but the environment is gray and boring. Funny but not wowing Poc o² 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per poco. Centred composition, ordinary light. Just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. —kallerna (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crëusc sëura Lavies Bula.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 04:02:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good and valuable image, but the background is too clutered to make this imgage special. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Christian Ferrer. I think it's a strong QI, but it doesn't have any extra wow for me, as it's a relatively ordinary object and a cluttered background. Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Christian. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And the light is not too exciting either.--Peulle (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with the others -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with Christian--Booth sift 05:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I think the crop I suggested might give it a chance. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the suggestion @Daniel Case: but I like the forest and the woodstack as environment for the wayside cross --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoofdorgel van de Grote of Sint-Bavokerk in Haarlem.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 10:19:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Netherlands
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Excellent quality considering the high-resolution, and no obvious stitching faults. But I can't help but think I'd prefer a more centred composition; the slight asymmetry does bother me a little. Cmao20 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20, the angle chosen results in a disturbing lack of symmetry. Also the lamp on the bottom right is annoying and the crop overall a bit too tight form my taste Poc o² 17:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO the off-center composition is reasonable here, because it prevents the chandelier from covering an important part of the church organ. --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the size relatively much image noise. Without tripod I assume. The problem with the chandelier was well solved here.--Ermell (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Aristeas/Ermell. -- Colin (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao, sorry--Booth sift 05:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. —kallerna (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:African Red-Eyed Bulbul 2019-07-25.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 18:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pycnonotidae_(Bulbuls)
Info created and uploaded by Axel Tschentscher - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Such a strong tilt: the bird should fall, shouldn't it? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks OK to me. It's a passerine. Charles (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Here is a straighter poise, but with less prominent eye. --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 13:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This bird is quite nice, but why is the horizon leaning that much to the left? When I apply a rotation of about 15 degrees to the picture, it looks immediately much more natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you put the other picture right next to this one, you can see the tilt is by bird, not by camera. Natural is whatever the bird does -- even if it looks like a stylized pose from mannerism? --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 18:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Charles and you might be right. Certainly an optical effect, then. Thanks for the information -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 08:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd prefer a portrait format with the tail as a whole --Llez (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pycnonotidae_(Bulbuls)

File:E-burg asv2019-05 img46 view from VysotSky.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 20:43:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Russia
Info View of City Pond of Yekaterinburg from VysotSky panorama point at sunset ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo, sun really adds something to the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aesthetic view of a Russian city with relatively few good shots on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Даже противоположный мост получился хорошо. (Надо кстати, посмотреть, что за мост и сделать аннотацию) --Brateevsky {talk} 10:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 and Michielverbeek. --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view but will not support until the flares (in this case big red spots) are fixed Poc o² 18:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Такую картину мы всегда стараемся снимать и редко получаем правильную. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, Montgolfiade (an den Aaseewiesen) -- 2019 -- 9668 (crop).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 17:19:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Aerostats
Info created and uploaded by and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info What would we be without good suggestions? Thank you, Cart. It was her suggestion. --XRay ^talk 17:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'The Place Where Balloons Are Hatched' to sail out into the world. :-) To me this looks like a real-life version of something that artist Erik Johansson would spend weeks creating. XRay did it in one shot. --Cart (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is the best of your series of pictures of these balloons. The composition is more dramatic and inviting. Cmao20 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 18:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the average light, the subject is special and captivating enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart and Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gorilla Male perspective 5.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2019 at 01:48:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info Couldn't help it, but here is another skull. created by and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 01:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 01:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly FP level, but File:Gorilla Male Global.jpg is already FP, so I don't see the point to have this one separately. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. This is great on its own terms, but with the other one already featured, it's a bit redundant. Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for informing me--Booth sift 17:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harrah's Casino, New Orleans.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 21:38:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United_States
Info created by vlxa on Flickr - uploaded by Infrogmation - nominated by Infrogmation -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Support -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CA and unsharp on the sides, should have stopped down to f/8 and used a longer exposure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KOH, a good and illustrative cityscape but flawed for FP. In addition to the above criticisms, there is significant perspective distortion, and I find the crops a bit random especially the cut-off building on the right. Cmao20 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the informative comments! Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

File:Aztec Sandstone - Valley of Fire.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 02:28:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Nevada
Info: all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but, as spectacular as this definitely is, it suffers from many of the same problems as this one in that I don't think your lens was good enough to bring out detail at pixel level, and it's oversharpened to compensate. I think your current work is a lot better in terms of quality than these older pictures from the USA. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right. I guess I'll just have to come back and retake it :-)

Oppose I'm not convinced by this composition, it looks like you're too near, the bottom is quite cut off, as is I see myself only standing before a huge block of rock. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:StockholmCentralStationinterior.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2019 at 23:35:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 23:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition seems cluttered to me, and motion blur at the bottom (especially the cut-off head) is rather distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Standard hall, not really special. Also per King -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. QI for sure, but no wow. A higher viewpoint, above the lamps, might be much more interesting. Just an idea, can’t say if this is possible. --Kreuz schnabel 07:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow but you did the best you could. This hall is notorious for being cluttered, uninspiring, dull and hard to get a decent full-size photo of. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Strong QI but unfortunately I agree with Cart, it's just not the most interesting hall. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks!!!! Ezarateesteban 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pantala flavescens (globe skimmer) in flight, side view.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2019 at 00:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Libellulidae_(Skimmers)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Respect. -- -donald- (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.-- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Charles (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was about to nominate this image for FP as well --D-Kuru (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 14:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was going to be my nomination --Booth sift 06:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Libellulidae_(Skimmers)

File:Swallow Prominent on a grey wall.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 23:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Familia : Notodontidae
Info Ok, a bit of a gamble, but since we have dead bugs on white or black backgrounds maybe there can be a live one on gray. I was a bit surprised that we don't have any FPs of this family. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harmonious colors. Yann (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grey on grey doesn't work aesthetically -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics differ with cultures, Riksväven [1]. --Cart (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling, of course. Quality image but not an FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, Grey#In nature and culture: radioactivity, smoke, meteorite, wolf, military academy, battleship... Grey is also the color of pollution. This animal seems enclosed in an artificial and industrial environment unfortunately. Then a bit depressing, in my opinion. Like this one, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it is sitting on the wall of a medium-sized, gray-painted wooden house next to a forest. It's as far from an industrial environment as you can get, but you are of course entitled to your opinion. --Cart (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this wall was white or green, the impression would certainly be different. And if this animal was shot in the forest also -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Basile on the aesthetics. Moths are annoying in choosing boring light-coloured places to settle. Charles (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Charles, I didn't know that. Well, it makes sense they would seek out places to rest where they are a little less visible for predators, I guess. I'm happy to learn the moth is in a place it likes. --Cart (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support IMHO this “Shades of Grey” ;–) image has got a special kind of aesthetics; the absence of vivid colours emphasizes the structure, like in a Grisaille painting. --Aristeas (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now we are talking... Poc o² 18:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The specimen is beautiful. I've never focus-stacked myself, but I guess it's quite a bit surplus work. You can see the singular bristles and scales on the wall - which, I think, is not really focused, as well as the front legs. It drags my eyes... But I guess it just couldn't have been done better. --GeXeS (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GeXeS, I have to be totally honest and say that: Yes, it can be done better, if you have a DSLR (perhaps full-frame) and a marco lens, which I don't. I'm just happy it came out as good as it did. --Cart (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support although can anything be done to reduce the blown highlights on the right wing? Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that much I can do since the white scales seem to be oriented directly at the sun in that area, with almost no shadows in between them. I have managed to retrieve some info from a few layers the stacking program hadn't used and patched it in now. --Cart (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, Montgolfiade (an den Aaseewiesen) -- 2019 -- 9804.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2019 at 14:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Aerostats
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 14:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 14:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic and illustrative capture. Cmao20 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The left part looks a bit cluttered. Tight crop, a bit too close to the technician. Interesting image but the composition is not well balanced in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish it had more DoF, though. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but I'm not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately having thought about it for a while, I'm with Daniel on this one. It is very instructive, but instructing can get a bit cluttered. Concentrating on just the red elements in the photo, balloon/flame/basket/fire extinguisher, might have been better visually. --Cart (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel also--Booth sift 05:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, Poc o² 08:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. —kallerna (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schlafmohn Papaver somniferum 2019-06-17 13-19-31 (C).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2019 at 06:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Papaveraceae
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most detailed center shot yet. --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 09:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really well done, I love this. Cmao20 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo of such a small, beautiful flower center. --Aristeas (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine detail. Charles (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like some fancy dessert ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stena Jutlandica September 2013 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2019 at 17:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info Stena Jutlandica arrives in Gothenburg under the Älvsborg Bridge. I tried to combine two well-known symbols for Gothenburg in a picture. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I even think you got Kal and Ada on the top deck. Doesn't get more Göteborg (or as they write it now, go:teborg) than that. :) --Cart (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. Cmao20 (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I think it's a great idea, but not the best execution. The bridge is too close to the top, which makes it feel disconnected from the ship, and the lampposts are also too close to the top edge as a result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The bridge above seems a little jarring, but it's a good enough image for FP otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 18:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cygnus-Wall.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2019 at 22:53:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info The Cygnus Wall, a portion of the North America Nebula in the constellation Cygnus; the part of the nebula where star formation is densest. Note that instead of being just another NASA shot, this is an image by an amateur astronomer with an account on Commons. I found this very impressive, as it is not too far away from NASA standards, and it certainly has wow for me. created by Cpayoub - uploaded by Cpayoub - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to see clouds like this in my sky, sometimes :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is raining on the sky. --Yann (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Nebulae

File:Edison's Greatest Marvel-The Vitascope - Restoration.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2019 at 14:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Raff & Gammmon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Double-checked the files around this, and discovered one was featured. Going to delist-and-replace. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 18:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blond child with blue eyes.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2019 at 20:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by khalilalattar, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As usual, I struggle to accept that we should promote portraits of unknown children. But I realise I'm in a minority. I guess we'll do nothing till a parent makes a big fuss. Charles (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose Striking sight and good composition. These bright eyes and this red headscarf remind me the Afghan Girl. Unfortunately the quality is not there, at full size, posterization artifacts (hair and cheeks). Downsized image. Probably heavy JPG compression, since the size is only 524 KB -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor quality. In addition, absolutely no background information such as location, ethnicity. --A.Savin 01:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks nice as a thumbnail but the heavy artefacts mean that the technical quality is too low.--Peulle (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very poor quality JPG. Overcompressed. -- Colin (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 18:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Onésime Reclus Nadar GALLICA.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 07:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Nadar, restored and uploaded by Jebulon, nominated by Yann (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valued photo (for "Francophonie"): yes, but quality not quite on the same level as this FP restoration. --Axel ^(talk) 15:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 18:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:White-backed Vulture (Gyps africanus) (32467673583).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 09:53:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus_:_Gyps
Info Full plummage view, maximum neck twist, fierce stare. Created by Bernard DUPONT - uploaded by Helmy_oved - reviewed by FlickreviewR - nominated by Axel Tschentscher
Support -- Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 09:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor technical quality lets this one down. Charles (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the remaining noise is hard to avoide with a bridge camera. I was looking for FPs of Gyps africana. The only other one is IMO less worthy of FP. --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 11:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More likely bad camera settings or post-processing. It's the same camera I use and this is way more noise than I usually get. --Cart (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A good and valuable illustration for articles, but per Cart the processing really lets this one down. Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues aside this is a really busy and chaotic composition with an overabundance of earth tones that doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 02:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 18:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Earth-DSCOVR-20150706-IFV.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 07:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The first DSCOVR EPIC image, released by NASA on July 6, 2015, shows the full sunlit Earth from 916,651 mi (1,475,207 km) away, centered on the Americas.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Drbogdan and JorisvS - nominated by The NMI User -- The NMI User (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with this resolution. We have a bigger image which is 45 years old. I suppose NASA can do better than that today. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An image of the Earth only 3 megapixels one of the best images on Commons? I think not.--Peulle (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not bad, but as well as the file Yann links to we have lots more FPs of Earth from space. Not sure what makes this one special enough that it should be featured as well. Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others (although I'm surprised no one has yet pointed out that it needs perspective correction ). Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 02:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Never, per others. The crop done to the original upload, causing even visible damage to the image quality (file downsized by 2.5!) wasn’t a good idea either (could at least have chosen a 1:1 ratio crop). --Kreuz schnabel 06:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 18:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neon.JPG (delist), not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 10:54:10

Info Featured in 2007. No longer meets FP criteria of todays standards imo, 4 megapixel resolution, for a static object, not very sharp. A large portion of the image is empty. More detail in the tubing would've been visible with different camera settings, see File:NeTube.jpg showing more detail. Category:Neon signs files are not hugely different in quality to this. (Original nomination)
Delist -- BevinKacon (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see that much better neon images, there is something visually pleasing in this one. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BevinKacon, feel free to nominate any images you think are better, but I'm not seeing anything so wrong with this that suggests our featured collection of neon signs (or any signs or lights) has left this one looking weak in comparison and no longer worthy of the badge. Sharpness looks fine and I don't think more megapixels would add any more detail to a sign that is meant to be looked at from some distance. Btw, I'm aware that the white light requires an argon-mercury filling, rather than a pure neon filling (which would be red or orange), but according to Wikipedia, this sort of light tube technology is still called a neon lamp. As a work of art (which this sign presumably is) it has its own value rather than being used as a sign for some shop or entertainment venue. The composition, with the light fading to black on the edge of the frame is nicely done. So, I don't think this is merely a QI of some random neon sign. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The compo and meta qualities of it are still ok. --Cart (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quality is fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is wrong with this picture?--Booth sift 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pudelek (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --A.Savin 18:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liliuokalani, c. 1891.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 06:28:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting people
Info Unknown creator; restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject, great level of details, good restoration, as usual. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support mostly because of the very interesting history behind it --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work by Adam Cuerden. --Gnosis (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Though I'd prefer it without the signature, really (it makes for a nice story, granted). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Sitting people

File:Machapuchare Himal-3797.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 09:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vey nice compo, but a bit over-processed especially on the vibrance and saturation. Could you perhaps dial it down a bit, I'm sure it will look very nice even without the extra boost. --Cart (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does look like huge processing work has been done on the "blue" hills. Charles (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter and Charlesjsharp:

Done Reprocessed please have a look.--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better. --Cart (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well the painted bright blue sky has gone, but I'm still not sure about the hills. Charles (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2019

@Charlesjsharp: Hills are ok. 100% organic :)--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good then, though I'd crop a bit off the bottom. Charles (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful light --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Booth sift 02:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Winter auf der Milseburg.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 17:55:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info Winter on the Milseburg in the Rhön Mountains. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, attractive scenery -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dirtsc (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, with the church peeking out from behind the trees. Cmao20 (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torlesse Range from Mt Torlesse, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 20:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's a panorama of Torlesse Range. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but a bit similar to File:View to Castle Hill Peak from Red Peak, Torlesse Range, New Zealand.jpg, which composition is far better in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Basile Morin Hmmm do you reckon it's too similar? I'll withdraw if it is. This photo is taken from a different peak though and showing the whole range (more or less). But perhaps the light makes it look too similar. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both shots were taken 2 hours away. Same light, same mountains. I'm saying this because I've immediately had an impression of dejà vu. "I'll withdraw if it is" No, wait: I've not opposed yet -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'm happy to withdraw if folks here think it's too similar. I guess I haven't participated at FPC long enough to develop the sense on what's too similar and what is still acceptable. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral if you want my opinion. The composition, but also the light were better in the other -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin Sure, I always welcome any opinion. I was thinking that maybe we can mention somewhere at COM:FP that similar pictures should't be nominated and link some cases where pictures were declined at FPC for too much similaritiy and when it was acceptable. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 04:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have plenty of lookalike photos of Alps. This is great in its own right. --Cart (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torre de Hércules, La Coruña, España, 2015-09-24, DD 12-15 PAN.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 14:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info Panoramic view of the Tower of Hercules, A Coruña, Galicia, north-western coast of Spain. The 55 metres (180 ft) hight tower, an ancient Roman lighthouse, is the oldest (almost 1900 years) Roman lighthouse in use today and the second tallest lighthouse in Spain (after the Faro de Chipiona). The lighthouse was rehabilitated in 1791 and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2009. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 14:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, good sharpness across the whole panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Slight CW tilt, but that's easily fixable.--Peulle (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I applied a 0,2 degrees tilt Poc o² 19:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighthouse is something like 2 % of the image, imo the panorama is otherwise rather dull. —kallerna (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corniglia dal Sentiero Azzurro1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2019 at 15:36:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info: all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Fine place but what I don’t like is the dark background on the left (hillside in shadow). Instead, I’d prefer to see more of the foreground rock to the bottom and to the right. Rather soft for 15 mpix. There’s a strange dark seam above the hillside horizon, maybe from retouching work. Altogether I don’t think thats one of the very best images on Commons while it’s really nice. --Kreuz schnabel 05:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I was going to fix the dark seam, but all I see are some darker clouds, perhaps you could leave a note? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good composition but it all looks a bit too hazy, and the light is a little flat. I think you weren't lucky with the weather; an FP of this beautiful place is certainly possible. Cmao20 (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hydrangea arborescens Annabelle over a fence.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2019 at 17:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Hydrangeaceae
Info So, why the fence? Besides acting as an interesting line and kind of impromptu "vase" for the flowers, it has another meaning for me. Here in Sweden, these flowers are synonym with old gardens and this perspective and old painted fence, brings me back to being a kid in my grandmother's garden, lying on the grass looking up at the white balls and imagining they were fluffy clouds in the sky. Not sure anyone else sees it that way though. -- Cart (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 18:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. Makes a surprisingly good desktop wallpaper too. Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The disturbingly out-of-focus left edge isn't working for me, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool angle and great framing. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred foreground, but also not very special. Ordinary light, boring grey -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Working for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: thumbnail looks lovely, but not much is in focus in the full view. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others--Ermell (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The idea of the fence as a contrasting line is interesting and works for me; however, I would have chosen a slightly higher point of view so the fence is less dominant, and more of the blossoms visible. My reason to slightly oppose again is a pixelpeeping one: the left flowerball shows entirely sharpened noise instead of the creamy bokeh I’d like to see here, so it won’t work well as a desktop wallpaper either. --Kreuz schnabel 07:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz, thanks for your keen eye, I had missed that and you bring up a bothering subject. Sharpening noise is more visible on Commons' interface since it tends to add a bit more sharpening/contrast to photos (more prominent at thumb size). I've discussed this with another photographer and we have compared how photos are displayed on Commons vs Flickr (less extra sharpening) or Photosop and Lightroom. It is rather difficult to get some photos to look good on all sites as well as on your own computer. Anyway, I have reverted the smart sharpening on the left ball and it looks much better. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that websites sharpen images! Charles (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpening/contrast/whatever; some websites use software that affects how photos are displayed, most prominent with thumbs or previews. Take a look at how this photo looks at thumb vs full size (and it looks less glary on Flickr). Or the difference on Commons and Flickr for this apple tree. MediaWiki seems to like the thumbs more contrasty(sharpening) for "cleaner" display in articles. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works for me too Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose top part of the flowers are too bright and left one is out of focus. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --XRay ^talk 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light! —kallerna (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.:

"this perspective and old painted fence, brings me back to being a kid in my grandmother's garden,"

We had a hedge back home in the suburbs / Over which I never could see

"... lying on the grass looking up at the white balls and imagining they were fluffy clouds in the sky."

What were the skies like when you were young?

Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A truly poetic vote. Thanks Daniel. --Cart (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others--Booth sift 02:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks all for your comments. --Cart (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sameksha Singh, Bollywood actress, photoshoot (cropped).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 07:13:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by AtticDeveloper77, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have any FP of Bollywood people yet. And very few of people from the movie industry in general. -- Yann (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Creator not registered? Eyes could perhaps be sharper in an unmoving portrait shot. --Axel ^(talk) 10:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Axel Tschentscher: "Creator not registered", what do you mean? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I was wondering: AtticDeveloper77 has no user page and the contribs list a number of deletion requests/rights claims against user Beeblebrox. Is this legit now? Do we have the real creator here? --Axel ^(talk) 17:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the uploads of AtticDeveloper77 are original images with consistent EXIF data, so I don't see any reason to doubt authorship. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good enough for me. Cmao20 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't look quite crisp to me. Looks like it's been airbrushed or something.--Peulle (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, no reason for a studio shot to be at ISO 2,500. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I'm with Peulle on this. Probably some popular softening "beauty filter" has been applied. Also she looks a bit vacant/'not connecting with the camera' to me. --Cart (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: The softness and the thoughtful mood are certainly on purpose. They are features, not bugs. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know they are features, I just don't find those features attractive in this case. --Cart (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Peulle--Booth sift 02:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taktsang Monastery, Bhutan 07.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 01:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Bhutan
Info created by and uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 01:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 01:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dominant right rock face directs attention to depth of crack. --Axel ^(talk) 05:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light, no wow. —kallerna (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic place. Sharpness could be better, but OK at 7 megapixels. Cmao20 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Wow is there, but definitely unsharp. For a static motif, a crisper pic should normally be no problem, I guess? --A.Savin 20:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you--Booth sift 02:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red-Crested Korhaan 2019-07-24.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2019 at 06:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Otididae_(Small_Bustards)
Info This is the first FP candidate in /Birds/Otidiformes/Otididae. Created, uploaded, nominated by Axel Tschentscher 06:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique V-shaped feather pattern, gray-blue head feathers and yellow eye ring -- Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 06:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But the bird facing away with head in shade. Tight crop at bottom. Not as good as this one Charles (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Certainly the better mug shot, but no pattern view and head crest view possible with ruffled feathers from the side perspective. Tight crop bottom to avoid dominant gravel shadow and left to allow facing into two-thirds. Also: how about sharpening artefacts around feather contours? --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 09:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the way this pose shows off the plumage, and the relationship with the background. The patterns remind me of butterfly/moth wings. -- Colin (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good compo, well balanced. I like the way the sharp arrow-shaped pattern on an arrow-shaped body up to the pointy beak, contrasts the blurry round pebbles. --Cart (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image has many good qualities, but I agree with Charles about the composition, and the image quality is not perfect with a little less detail on the feathers than I might have liked. The image Charles links to is OK, but you're right about the sharpening artefacts. Overall neither quite rises to the standard of FP for me, sorry. I think you have plenty of better pics. Cmao20 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't work for me with this distracting shadow at the bottom right corner and the tight crop at left & bottom. Also per Charles, animal seen from behind, not the most captivating show -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Basile--Booth sift 05:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles; also I find the background distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nunnery Erlenbad - Sasbach 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2019 at 05:12:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but please correct the stitching error (see note). Unfortunately a bit unsharp at the sides --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think we are gaining much from the very wide angle panorama. I recommend a crop all round. Too much path foreground and trees in the side which only emphasise the harsh midday sun. It is a good capture of the building, but we have many fine buildings and I don't think this quite makes FP. -- Colin (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Cropped as suggested --Llez (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wouldn't have supported the uncropped version, but this is now more than good enough for me. Cmao20 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one or the previous version with the wonderful garden -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ratargul-02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 04:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Children in a boat on the Shari-Goyain River in Ratargul Swamp Forest, Bangladesh.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info created by Abdulmominbd - uploaded by Abdulmominbd - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Truly a WOW picture. Does it need straightening of the horizon? Boat and riverside seem to have a slight left tilt. --Axel ^(talk) 04:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please give it a bit more meaningful name after the nomination is over. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. It should also have a {{personality rights}} tag added as soon as the protection is lifted, or if some admin could fix it. --Cart (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Spectacular capture but I wish some of the CA could be corrected. Cmao20 (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Not the highest quality but very nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Category changed from Places/Natural to People#Sitting_people. The previous one is more dedicated to natural landscapes, while the subjects here are clearly these children -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurry background but fresh image -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glad to see this here. This was the winner of Wiki Loves Earth 2019 in Bangladesh. Disclosure: I was on the jury, if that matters for FPC purposes. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah...--Booth sift 02:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Sitting_people

File:Climbing World Championships 2018 Combined Final Klingler (BT0B0188).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2019 at 12:33:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_Sports
Info created by simon04 - uploaded by simon04 - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Granada (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! That blue blurry hold would be distracting if it wasn't for her glaring at it (or in that direction) as if it was an antagonist. (Or as if is was Lara Croft in a computer game where she has to reach the button to turn of the destruction of the galaxy. :-) ) --Cart (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really fascinating colors in black space; plus great concentration mirrored in the expression --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 15:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very distracting blurry foreground. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart and Axel. Not perfect (blurry foreground) but the pose and expression work very well. Cmao20 (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree Yann. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann--Booth sift 05:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me, but I would request a more detailed description incl. the full name of the climber. A statement concerning personality rights is also required. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart and Axel. --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reluctant, but having looked at this every day, the blurry foreground hold distracts from the great shot. Perhaps another crop might improve things? Charles (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Individual_Sports

File:Crested serpent eagle - Spilornis cheela.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 10:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created by Senthiaathavan - uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by A-wiki-guest-user -- A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unsharp and noised, low quality -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A very dramatic image that deservedly did well in WLE, but the image quality is not great. It looks better downsized to 6 mpx but even then significant noise is visible (although the unsharpness on the wing doesn't matter to me as it's indicative of a bird in flight). I also get the impression that there's vignetting going on at the corners, and whether that was the fault of the lens or a deliberate post-processing choice, it isn't really a mark of quality for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the noise. --Axel ^(talk) 15:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes per others--Booth sift 02:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I think it's time for the nominator to take the hint from all these opposes and withdraw the nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pseudo Kleinian OpenCL 26082019 8K 004.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2019 at 11:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info A 3D Apollonian gasket image (more infos and alternative image in the file description) created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm not that attracted by these computer-generated mathematics made visible, but at least this 3D "fractal goes steampunk" is much more interesting than the usual 2D models and it has some weird aesthetics to it. --Cart (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP IMO--Booth sift 05:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:African emerald cuckoo (Chrysococcyx cupreus) male.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 15:21:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Cuculidae_(Cuckoos)
Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by -- Axel ^(talk) 15:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Axel ^(talk) 15:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality shot from Charles, and very beautiful; seems to be the best image of this species on Commons. Shame the accompanying female is partly covered by leaves, else we could have had a set. Cmao20 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a beautifully camouflaged bird! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Messy environment that would not work with an ordinary bird, but these iridescent feathers are so special -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Cayambe (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this is a stunning bird (with bright yellow chest feathers) that I only saw once from a canopy walkway in Ghana and had no chance for a better shot. As Wikipedia says cuckoos are "a shy and retiring family, more often heard than seen". Charles (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Cuculidae_(Cuckoos)

File:Dampfzug am Brocken in Winterlandschaft (2).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 14:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created & uploaded by Mtrienke - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 14:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Expected this to be one of Kabelleger's shots at first. Good quality and composition, especially with the nice dramatic steam cloud. Cmao20 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This already is a FP.--Ermell (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In German Wikipedia. Tomer T (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Ermell: That's only on dewiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mix of white snow with white smoke -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, I am desiring for snow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the way it's running on no rails... (but is it tilted?) Charles (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, I am sure this is tilted about 2 deg. Mtrienke and Tomer T. Does anyone agree? Charles (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carts number 3 and 4 are fine. It seems that these vehicles can jolt -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carriages may be... but not the engine! Charles (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epic. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dode geknakte berk (Betula) 21-08-2019. (d.j.b). 09.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2019 at 15:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # The Netherlands
Info A summer storm has struck the terminal birch. Birch mushrooms have begun recycling.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Booth sift 05:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Now after a second look, no wow--Booth sift 02:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is fine, but I miss some wow here, not sure what makes this shot special Poc o² 08:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting picture and good quality as ever but I don't think this is among your best. At first I didn't really know what I was looking at, and an FP for me shouldn't be a picture where you rely on the caption to see what's going on. I agree that it lacks wow compared to your best work. Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good light but I don't see anything else than messy branches. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good light but I don't see anything else than messy branches. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO way better than the other one. The wider view gives more context so I can understand what I'm looking at. Cmao20 (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better but still not FP to me. Hightlights seem blown, and the image somehow lacks depth to me. The cut-off branches don’t help. Composition just looks arbitrary. Maybe it should have been taken from the right hand side, with the crack in foreground and the cracked-off tip pointing away from the viewer. --Kreuz schnabel 07:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. You mean like this--Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not wowed by either one ... all I see is a damaged tree. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official program - Woman suffrage procession March 3, 1913 - crop.jpg (delist), delisted and replaced

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2019 at 14:20:41

Original
Proposed replacement

Info I found a better source for this one, which let me get more natural colours, and it lacked the missing chip that ate the leftmost woman's shoulder, forcing a reconstruction that was nearly, but not quite, correct. Also, having quite a few years of experience on my younger self doesn't hurt. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Improvements are all sensible. Cmao20 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Booth sift 05:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new version looks blurred to me. Especially looking at the "Votes for women" text.--Peulle (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peulle: It's halftoned. Some historical artefacts, like this one, only exist in halftone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace .--Vulp here 08:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Gnosis (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. --A.Savin 08:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seehof Phoenicurus ochruros female 5264746.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2019 at 21:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Muscicapidae_(Old_World_Flycatchers)
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful light and color, central position works here -- Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 21:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture :-) Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like the early bird caught the worm. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, good quality and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The greenish light caused by the tree leaves prevents the viewer from understanding the true feather colors of this species. So, from an encyclopedic perspective, I'd never use it in a biology-related article. However, we could still perceive it as a work of art, rather than an illustration with encyclopedic value. For me personally, though, even the second criterion isn't fulfilled. That's why I think of this as a quality image, rather than a featured picture. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Axel and King. --Aristeas (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, I hadn't checked. Frank is right. Charles (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae_(Old_World_Flycatchers)

File:Pier by Sabine Hut, Nelson Lakes National Park, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 06:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#New_Zealand
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I quite like the light a simple, straightforward composition. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit too much wooden deck IMO. See note. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @You'll be right, Colin. I provided an alternative version. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good also. It is a different image. --Yann (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:9 alternative

Support -- Colin (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this works better or me, too. --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 12:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not subtle, but impressive quality and nice light. Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect crop. -- -donald- (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a friend of 16:9 but I find the other one better. It transports the distance and the length of the way much better. --Hockei (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both are good, I prefer this one. --Aristeas (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like one of those pictures in photography magazines explaining centered perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Pier_by_Sabine_Hut_16-9,_Nelson_Lakes_National_Park,_New_Zealand.jpg

File:Pluvialis fulva 5 - Boat Harbour.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 12:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Charadriidae_(Plovers)
Info created by JJ_Harrison - uploaded by JJ_Harrison - nominated by Axel Tschentscher
Support -- Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 12:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar problem with unnaturally blurred foreground, as in one of other recent nominations. Overprocessed. No location. Useless to request the author about it. Please at least fix your FP category before nominating... --A.Savin 13:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the category error; thanks for fixing it. --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 17:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the location and coordinates were in the description if not in categories. All fixed up now at least. (This too should have been made before nominating it, You'll get it right next time. ;-) ) --Cart (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Super quality bird, but blurred foreground distracting. Charles (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, good composition, excellent light, beautiful colors. Clear FP for me (like the previous one) -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Quality seems good and the blurriness of the foreground doesn't bother me. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 07:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Charadriidae_(Plovers)

File:Równia pod Śnieżką (2019).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 12:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good snowy scene. Cmao20 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 18:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The signpost is the interesting thing about this picture and the right part is uninteresting. The realization could have been better.--Ermell (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course the signpost is the main feature, but nevetheless the almost empty part at the right is OK for me – it is something like negative space and emphasizes the signpost by putting it in context: a frozen signpost in the middle of nowhere. --Aristeas (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. —kallerna (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dirtsc (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Sapphire-throated hummingbird (Lepidopyga coeruleogularis coeruleogularis) male.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 08:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 14:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)

File:Tukche, Nepal-WLV-1450.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 08:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are we seeing a dirt road and a shed? Are they significant? We can barely see the Nepalese landscape. Charles (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will see less dirty, shed and more significant images from Nepal.--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Perhaps the natural stone wall of the path is one (of three) dramatic diagonals coming from the corners with the distant peak of the Tukche Ri in the center? Can't have center plus diagonals w/o the buildings. Also: The gravel path and the people plus goat bridge it leads to are fairly typical of Nepal. --Axel Tschentscher ^(talk) 20:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like how the branches of the central tree are obscuring the mountains in the background. The composition also doesn't connect for me; the foreground lines are leading into the right side, not the snow-capped mountains which should be the central focus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts--Ermell (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, not outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't have problems with the composition, or the subject, but it's not sharp enough. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not outstanding as per King of Hearts --Booth sift 02:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peatonal-Estocolmo.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 23:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 23:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like a snapshot to me. The people don't really have an interesting expression, and there's nothing to distinguish the composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hey, I recognize that street! Fellow Wikimania traveler, I take it. :) Thanks for uploading. It works for an illustration of Drottninggatan (crowded commercial walking street in Stockholm that I learned to avoid in the week I was there :) ), but there needs to be something more remarkable going on here to compensate for the overexposed highlights/noise. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Good quality and nice illustration of the street, but it doesn't really have anything special for FP in terms of lighting or composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others sorry. There’s really nothing special for me in this shot, you could take a pic like this in any city of the world. I’d cut off the dark part on the very right-hand edge. --Kreuz schnabel 17:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the others, sorry but it is just too ordinary --Booth sift 07:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; it just looks like any other picture of any other pedestrian mall. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 23:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sitting Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) bathing in Tad Lo river, Laos.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2019 at 01:45:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order : Proboscidea (Elephants)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, lighting and definition. Charles (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 13:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality and different from all other elephant FPs. Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any other Asian elephant FPs. Charles (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's one. But yes, many fewer Asian than African. Cmao20 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Order : Proboscidea (Elephants)

File:La vallata di Poggiorsini vista nel dettaglio.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 17:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Fishmax77 - uploaded by Fishmax77 - nominated by Yiyi -- Yiyi (Dimmi!) 17:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yiyi (Dimmi!) 17:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Feel free to nominate it later after one of the other noms is closed or withdrawn.--Cart (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Footbridge over a pond in Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden and NTT DoCoMo Yoyogi Building, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 01:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination before any display on the main page. Because the bridge is closed, this nomination may be controversial. Perhaps I will renominate it later -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:VistaCityHallEstocolmo.2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2019 at 18:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed the description and the very poor categorizaion for you. The file name should also be changed after the nom is over. "A view from Stockholm City Hall" means about half the city. --Cart (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks W.carter Ezarateesteban 19:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote after the nom was over. If it becomes an FP this name change during the nom will mess up the codes. Oh well, I'll keep an eye on it and fix things if it becomes successful. Just keep it in mind till the next time. --Cart (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I personally think the crane and the people ruin the view--Booth sift 20:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and wait for a nicer day too. Charles (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Good composition, good quality, deserved QI, but you weren't lucky with the weather and the lighting conditions. This image on a better day could have been clearly FP, I think. Cmao20 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift--Fischer.H (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 09:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boston City Hall aerial 2019 P1020786.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2019 at 13:37:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by NewtonCourt - uploaded by NewtonCourt - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 13:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine (✉) 13:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May be useful for a WP article, but still no wow for FP, perspective is distorted --A.Savin 18:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin, no wow--Booth sift 07:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image to illustrate the building, but perspective is distorted and there are some quality issues. Overall I do find that it lacks wow. Cmao20 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Pine (✉) 01:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elm Bank canoe launch 213345 929.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2019 at 13:50:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by NewtonCourt - uploaded by NewtonCourt - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 13:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine (✉) 13:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is so special about this photo? No wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't like this light.--Peulle (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow as per Michiel--Booth sift 07:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but indifferent quality - some significant blurriness and smudged details in the darker areas. Overall I like the image but I don't see enough that's special about it; it's not a particularly unusual or exceptional view. Cmao20 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I like the image but apparently I'm a small minority. --Pine (✉) 01:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bungemuseet Broa July 2019 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2019 at 04:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Historic farm building in Broa on the island Fårö north of Gotland in the Baltic sea. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image that could easily be the front-cover of any photographic magazine. Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rocky Masum (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not--Booth sift 07:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is really good. Charles (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Botolph's Aldgate, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2019 at 22:50:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#United Kingdom
Info A view of the interior of St Botolph's Aldgate, an eighteenth-century parish church in the city of london, from the gallery. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 23:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. —kallerna (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting enough IMO--Booth sift 02:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View of Tad Lo river from above, with temporary footbridge and goats, Laos.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2019 at 01:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great view with nice light but it seems tilted - check the river in the far back or the building by its end. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed You have good eyes, Podzemnik! Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Basile Morin Or perhaps you have a camera with too many megapixels (no I'm not jealous at all!). The view is really good - the goats make it wowy. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More pixels on your camera = less space on your hard disk :-) Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not quite sure how this composition manages to work, but it definitely does. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B2Belgium (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent composition --Milseburg (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 06:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zion National Park, Springdale.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2019 at 16:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ken Lane, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow there is, but poor quality. Extreme oversharpening meets extreme noise suppression. --A.Savin 20:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1. --Peulle (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A. Savin. Try again. -- -donald- (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Way overcooked. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Crocodylus porosus - Wilhelma.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2019 at 05:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beyond terrifying. Cmao20 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Fischer.H (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially because I know the crocodile enclosure in the Wilhelma: Unlike the older buildings, it is really no photogenic place, so I did not even think about taking photos there. But you did, and with stunning results! --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 13:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tree with red apples in Barkedal 4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2019 at 10:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info The dry and hot summer of 2018 was very hard on most plants here in Sweden, but the apples thrived in the many hours of sunshine. I have never seen such red apples here before! No saturation added. -- Cart (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I indeed thought to nominate one of your apple tree pictures. They look like cherries... Regards, Yann (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A remarkable sight, and per Yann. I like the square crop too. Cmao20 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. The crop first astonished me, but it is really good. --Aristeas (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx! I can't take credit for the crop, that was Colin's idea, which again shows that it is always good to have another pair of eyes on your photos. The full photo is in the file history, should anyone want it. --Cart (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Playful. Very Carty. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Юрьевская пещера.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2019 at 12:06:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Volga Federal District
Info Natural monument "Cave Yurievskaya" in Tatarstan ---- created and uploaded by Azmanova Natalia, nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 7. Cmao20 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 13:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plushies Mexico.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2019 at 19:51:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Gzzz -- Gzzz ^zz 19:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzzz ^zz 19:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong focus, not everything is really sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking image, quite special in its kind. Reminding me 99 cent by Andreas Gursky. Average quality but interior shots with non-static subjects are difficult. It looks quite good at 2500 px large -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek.--Peulle (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Sharpness is not perfect, but resolution is quite high, so I think criticising too much is a bit unfair on the image. Cmao20 (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the girl looking into the camera disturbs the scene and the shelves should be aligned.--Ermell (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support per Basile. It's a really fun image to look at. Somewhere between colorful children's utopia and superorganized commercial dystopia. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great image but has visible distortions (generic barrel + leaning outward towards the top-left corner). -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The girl ruins it for me--Booth sift 02:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Rhododendrites; technical flaws, while I acknowledge them, are not severe enough to compromise the image for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billie Eilish 08 10 2017 -24 (37238840341).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2019 at 23:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Billie Eilish performing live at The Hi Hat in Highland Park, Los Angeles, California, on Thursday, August 10, 2017. Created by Justin Higuchi - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice live music picture. Good light, good pose, not so typical composition, audience included giving depth and vibe. Kadellar (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The singer is well caught and the people in the rear add to the atmosphere, but I find the hands on the left too disturbing.--Peulle (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle.--Rocky Masum (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hands, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yep the hands just ruin it for me too, sorry--Booth sift 07:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad picture, and I like how well it captures the singer herself. But the hands do spoil things, I'm afraid. Cmao20 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop the hands out of the picture and there might have been something here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Female Toque macaque with her child at Katagamuwa Sanctuary - (Don't let them fade away).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 10:31:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)
Info created by Senthiaathavan - uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by A-wiki-guest-user -- A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Strong CA, quality problem -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Issues noted per George Chernilevsky, but overall the quality is up to scratch, and I like the image overall; it's certainly something we don't often see at FP. Having said that, I take issue with the explicitly political 'author's comments' on the image page. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments expressed, I don't think it's appropriate for an FP to take a political standpoint like this; a more neutral image description would be greatly preferable, I feel. Cmao20 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a photo is imported from another site or has another original name (given by the author) which it is know under on other sites, it is courteous to the author, and practical for online identification, keep it in some form when renaming the file to comply with Commons naming policy. This can of course be disregarded if the original name is highly offensive. In this case I figured we could keep the original like this when I renamed it, but it can be altered if you think it's better. --Cart (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the file name, but that doesn't concern me so much as the comments on the image page. 'Nature always belongs to those who nurture, care and protect it. But the humans have forcefully claimed it theirs and are on a path of destruction: destroying jungles, waterways and evicting the rightful owners, the wild animals.' Of course it's a perfectly respectable position to hold, but I think the place for these comments is on one's personal website or blog or on a social media site, not on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is quite clear (which it is) that the comment is strictly the author's and not the Wiki-project's, I think it's ok to keep it if it's not offensive. Photographers always have things to say about their photos, and when they become noted, we even quote them in articles. --Cart (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Because of the eyes. --Axel ^(talk) 15:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! ;-) Yes there is noise in the sky, but still at acceptable level. --A.Savin 20:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the CA.--Peulle (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would support if CA are fixed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture, unfortunately very distracting CAs, even at thumbnail size -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even considering the technical issues mentioned above, to me it’s simply a really great shot with tons of wow. --Kreuz schnabel 18:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the CA and the author using not only the image page but the filename itself for advocacy. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just commenting to object to "advocacy" coming up at all in this FPC. "Don't let them fade away" isn't political. Saying that a species going extinct is a bad thing, even in more impassioned words than that, is not advocacy in the pejorative sense we typically mean when Wikimedians use that term. If the comment on the file page violates Commons policy, that can be addressed, but I don't see why it should have any bearing on FPC. If it violates policy, deal with it through the proper channels. Failing it at FPC won't address it and it has nothing to do with the image itself. To be clear, I don't intend this to change anyone's mind; the CAs haven't been fixed, and I'm clearly here commenting rather than supporting. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to oppose this per others sorry--Booth sift 07:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Hockei (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:In Val d'Orcia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2019 at 20:17:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
Info created by JP Vets - uploaded by JP Vets - nominated by B2Belgium -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep... Okay... ummm... Yep. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks as if it's about to roll away. Charles (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lines, lines, lines... :) --Cart (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! Maybe change the filname (as soon as the FP voting is over) to something more meaningful: “Bale of straw in Val d'Orcia.jpg” or so … --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice, but more space at the left is desirable. --A.Savin 11:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 13:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO not enough space at the left. Should be at least the same as at the bottom. --XRay ^talk 11:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very dramatic image with immediate wow. Cmao20 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 17:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monument afsluitdijk en omgeving 28-06-2019. (actm.) 33.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2019 at 15:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other objects in landscapes
Info Tough, weather-and-wind influenced old bollards in the IJsselmeer.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking and impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the horizon should be aligned.--Ermell (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support though noise is just a tad higher than ideal for an ISO 100 daylight shot; maybe increase the masking in the sharpening tool? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Three hugly poles in front of an empty sea and an empty sky? Sorry, I don't see the point. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive love the composition Seven Pandas (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Yann, I don't see anything but three normal poles--Booth sift 02:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of Cart's work. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Common green forest lizard (Calotes calotes).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 01:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info All by AntanO -- Antan O 01:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 01:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 05:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough on head. Compare with this tiny watermarked photo. Charles (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A remarkable shot, but given the relatively small resolution I am inclined to agree with Charles. Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles--Booth sift 07:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles and others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 09:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower, Paris, France, 2018.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 05:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Dwayne Reilander - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am undecided, but could you reduce the CAs which are quite prominent in the lower part of the image? --Aristeas (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree that there's no wow, it has plenty for me, but I agree that the CAs need to be reduced. In addition, I'm somewhat bothered by that dark top-right corner. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is definitly a wow. Out of millions of pictures of the Eiffel tower this is wonderful. Wow. -- -donald- (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle of view is well chosen and has wow potential. But the strong vignetting + chromatic aberrations spoil it all, sorry. --A.Savin 11:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin. I'm happy to support if the author decides to process the picture in a new way. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow--Booth sift 07:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral CA noted by other !voters is fixable; I think I would support if it were fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 09:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koala in Zoo Duisburg.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 09:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order : Diprotodontia (Diprotodonts)
Info created and uploaded by Till.niermann - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add appropriate FP category (see discussion on FP nomination talk page). You have to go to koalas in trees to find the koala images that are better than this one. Charles (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FP category fixed as far as it works since we don't have any FPs in the 'Familia : Phascolarctidae' yet. --Cart (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the contrasty background and that it is on the move. I don't recall that many "action shots" of koalas. --Cart (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that's because they're usually asleep... Cmao20 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely shot, definitely something I've not seen before per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Kreuz schnabel 17:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting. --Cayambe (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The feet are for me not sharp enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 13:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it seems, the focus is not on the face. --A.Savin 11:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1/320 sec not enough to freeze movement (feet) Charles (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Order : Diprotodontia (Diprotodonts)

File:Purons sui ëures de Resciesa te Gherdëina Südtirol.jpg, Featured, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 07:23:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Familia : Rhizocarpaceae
Info A lichen is a composite organism that arises from algae living among filaments of multiple fungi species in a mutualistic relationship. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent in terms of quality, composition and resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely colours (apart from the cowpat!) Charles (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the pasture ;-)--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent.--Rocky Masum (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 14:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I be lichen this! Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can not really share the enthusiasm and find the composition of the background and foreground not excellent solved, especially with this thick rock just in front of the Geisler-Group. So both arn´t recognizeble optimaly. --Milseburg (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Familia : Rhizocarpaceae

File:Rose chafers (Cetonia aurata) on thistle (Carduus sp.).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 08:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Scarabaeidae (Scarab Beetles)
Info This is intended to be a busy composition! One of the chafers is finding nourishment from what looks like a dead flower head. Focus-stacked from 16 images. We have one FP of a single beetle. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall very good despite some small unsharp areas. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting. The left part is more successful than the right one. Did you try to crop it, cutting the stem out, to grant more importance to the 2 beautiful specimens in focus? The composition also appears less cluttered in my view. More of the flower at the left could work also -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more on left, I cropped the right for balance. Charles (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is good but despite the stacking unfortunately not a good sharpness result. Too bad.--Ermell (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have the impression that the whole picture is too blue including the beetles, compare with this --Llez (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes, I think you are right, though the one you reference is oversaturated. Llez. New version uploaded. Charles (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ermell. --Ivar (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very hard to focus stack something like this. On a pixel level, the photo is not perfect but IMO still without problems above the FP bar. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Ermell --Booth sift 07:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. --Hockei (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Scarabaeidae (Scarab Beetles)

File:View from Mt Oxford, Oxford Forest Conservation Area, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2019 at 10:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info View from Mt Oxford, Oxford Forest Conservation Area, Canterbury, New Zealand. I just like the view. It has a nice atmosphere or early spring that is arriving to New Zealand. -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Neutral~~ - I really like to see the whole panoramic view from this mountain. Why are we fed off with a clipping? --Milseburg (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting a part of a view hinges on composition of a photo while 360 panos are more about complete photographic documentation. Two different kinds of photography, both appreciated here on FPC since they can be used as illustrations in different ways. --Cart (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course and rightly much appreciated. But I think if it succeeds, the whole view would be more appreciated then just a section. I do not understand the choice of the right and left limits here even after reading title and description. Then there is the user-friendliness: If desired, each user can only use the section of a full panoramic view. Conversely, that does not work. --Milseburg (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to what kind of photos you like taking and are comfortable doing. I've tried 360 panos, but they never come out well since the sun always gets in the way, at least up here in the north where the sun isn't that high in the sky. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Milseburg I'm not into 360 panoramas. I find them a bit hard to use. As Cart mentioned, selection of the frame is up to a photographer. I can't capture everything in one frame so I select what I want to say with the photo and execute. I also wonder why you wrote that because you also produce panoramas like this. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The theme of that panorama are the Hochkalter mountains, it shows the Hochkalter mountains and it´s used in de:Hochkaltergebirge and also now in en:Hochkalter Mountains. If I had called it "View from Prünzlkopf" , I had presented like this. I am sure you are presenting the filet piece of the view here and it is very good and you had good conditions. I am far from opposing. But my enthusiasm is limited this time by the left and right margins. I would like to encourage you to try a 360 panorama the next time if you want to show the "view" of any mountain, while such a good seeing. It would be worthwhile. --Milseburg (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Milseburg So if the file was named "View north-west from Mt Oxford towards Southern Alps", that would be alright for you? That's what's written in the description. Sorry but I'm not a fun of 360 panoramas. I find them quite hard to use and they just display what you can see from the top. With 360, I'm often missing some kind of composition, or naturally set borders of the frame. I mean, your 360 panoramas are great, it's just no my thing :) By the way, if you really want to know how the pano would continue, you can check this image - there was a bushfire that day. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another name would let me miss the continuation on the right and left side as well. Colin does not like these resulting letter-boxformats either, but my eyes and my head seem so constrained to me when the view looks promising like yours and ends so abruptly. The question of what one sees from the summit is by no means trivial. It drives people to the mountains and I find it worthwhile to show it all. That is also the original meaning of the word "panorama". Okay, the bushfire would have disturbed my enjoyment of the view that day and spoiled a 360 panorama. Convinced, a section is the better choice here. So I vote Support now. I hope the fire was not deliberately laid and is now cleared. --Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great as ever. Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Annapurna South, Himchuli, Machapuchare Himal-3794.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 20:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created & uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not got the highest technical excellence, but I really like the composition. Charles (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles. Quality is OK considering 24 mpx resolution, and composition is quite beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I think the CAs around the branches should e fixed --Llez (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tou much empty sky and the dark parts are too noisy in full resolution. Not a FP for me. --Milseburg (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Beautiful but generally overprocessed: oversharpening is evident on the mountains, the lower corners are distorted with heavy CA, and as Milseburg noted there's an awful lot of noise (I also wonder how it is that the forest in the foreground is so bright ... I get the feeling that highlights were boosted to a greater degree there than elsewhere in the image; the result is a little unnatural). Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arenes de Nimes (18).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2019 at 15:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Wow, but I cannot deny the two walking men are disturbing the composition. Unfortunately it is impossible to remove it and I have found a spot (see note). --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michielverbeek; Done. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric light, and the “living statue” actor adds some magic to it. --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks distorted to me.--Ermell (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slightly leaning out, especially at the left side (visible at the buildings in the background) --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Aristeas, but I agree that it seems to be leaning out on the left and needs a perspective correction. Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mimihitam (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Some weird ghosting near the sides, but inobtrusive ghosting at that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lawachara Forest.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 17:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
Info created by Abdulmominbd - uploaded by Abdulmominbd - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you remove of the CAs, please? --Basotxerri (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the man supposed to be there? I don't get the significance. Charles (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Charlesjsharp: Tourist are allowed to visit the forest. So it is an usual incidence.--Rocky Masum (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think you should have waited then... Charles (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the man is a feature... Yann (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice forest but I find the man a disturbing element, sorry. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would support if CA are fixed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The man walking through the trees adds to the eerie atmosphere. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What is wrong with the man? I think it contributes, not takes away from this picture--Booth sift 04:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)--Booth sift 04:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the CAs. I will reconsider this if the CAs are fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support I'm not bothered by the man—it makes this look even more like a horror-movie onesheet, serene though it is—but I do want to see the CA fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really understand the idea behind this picture - it's good quality, but I don't see the point of the man or what he adds to the composition. I guess it's supposed to be somewhat eerie, but the idea doesn't come across strongly enough to me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Kruger, 2012).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 10:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
Info created & uploaded by Yathin sk - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know whether this has been downsized slightly, but regardless, I like it very much. Good, sharp image, well-framed and with a good expression. Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good focus but a wider DoF would have shown more details -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess it was downsized, but a long time ago. Still good detail. Charles (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schneider Postrum Fischhaus Trier.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2019 at 08:20:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media#Others
Info created in 1919 by Anton Schneider-Postrum - reproduced from an original etching, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05. 08:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Echinopsis IMG 2981.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 07:00:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Cactaceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fischer.H, can you please fix your category to point at the relevant family in /Plants. We have thousands of FPs of plants and the least you can do to help reviewers and FPC-closers is to locate which of them we compare your image against. It isn't as though you haven't already identified the plant in the File Description page, so please just make an effort to get your nomination right. -- Colin (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher.H, the category link still doesn't work. You need to put "Family : Cactaceae" after the # because that's what the sub-section name is. It doesn't magically go looking for words that match. This isn't rocket science, and I would appreciate you taking the time to get it right, rather than us having to fix things for you every time.. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I find the grid pattern behind the flower disturbing. It doesn't go well with the lines and shape of the flower. --Cart (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. A good QI but the background is distracting. Cmao20 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisbon Praça do Comércio BW 2018-10-03 13-29-10.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2019 at 07:21:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by Berthold Werner - uploaded by Berthold Werner - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All those wires and the tram in front are disturbing, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Peulle. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The desired Category for FP is "Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles", how can the Tram and their overhead lines then be disturbing? --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Disturbing overhead lines and pole. Yann (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Shadhu in Pasupatinath Temple-1957.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2019 at 06:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Sitting_people
InfoPotrait of Shadhu sitting inside Pandra Shivalaya in Pasupatinath Temple.created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, not as good as the other one, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This need a crop at the top. Yann (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think it is reasonable to have two FPs of same person in same clothes 10 minutes apart. The other one is photographically superior, and FP is about the "finest". -- Colin (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rajamangala hall, Rama 9 Park.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2019 at 03:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Thailand
Info created by and uploaded by Supanut Arunoprayote - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 03:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 03:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grey weather and the framing is too large -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I propose to cut off a part of the sky to get symmetry --Llez (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky should be improved. --XRay ^talk 11:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good QI and interesting building, but the light is so flat and grey. I think a much better image of the building could be possible. Cmao20 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better overall this way, but I think the distracting blue sky up top could be cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

@W.carter, Aristeas, Basile Morin, Johann Jaritz, Llez, XRay, and Cmao20: Is this crop better? --Booth sift 23:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improved, though now too tight at the bottom and still too large on top in my opinion. See note above -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Basile, the crop he suggests is better. This one is now too tight at the bottom and the sides. Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like Cmao20; this crop is too tight, I prefer Basile’s suggestion or even a bit more sky. --Aristeas (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight. Yann (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination No time to make the changes, sorry--Booth sift 03:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bottom view of Kyoto Tower at night, Japan.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 02:19:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a view of the tower, I don't think it is a good angle. Compare this which, although technically bad, is a better angle - you can see the shape of the tower and more of the base and top. As an abstract image, it doesn't interest me enough. Quite a lot of grey featureless material -- is that plastic, steel or concrete? Wrt processing, the left and right edge of the tower have jaggies. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This view highlights the red structure -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I prefer this angle to the one that Colin links to. You can't see the tower's shape as well, but the image is more dramatic. Cmao20 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This angle achieves a dense composition and a better color distribution. Looks much more interesting to me. --Axel ^(talk) 08:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no problem with the angle, but there's a lot of posterization and ringing evident on the lights and other structures at top and bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination After 4 days, obvious lack of enthusiasm. No worry, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019-07-31-Lough Hyne-0828.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2019 at 17:58:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ireland
Info created by and uploaded by Superbass - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 17:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 17:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Here things are made impressively visible which normally are not to be seen but the sharpness and balanced exposure is not enough for an FP. If there is still room for improvement, I'll be happy to change my mind.--Ermell (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many houses overexposed, on the left side they are leaning to the left, on the right side to the right --Llez (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Immense wow-factor outweighs some minor technical flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The noisy sky spoils it. --Milseburg (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Looks like one of those Windows Spotlight lockscreen images. Yes, the sky is noisy, but it takes up maybe one-eighth of the image and for a contemporary drone this is pretty good. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BispiraVolutacornis.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 17:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Polychaeta
Info created by Roberto Strafella - uploaded by Roberto Strafella - nominated by Yiyi -- Yiyi (Dimmi!) 17:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yiyi (Dimmi!) 17:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a very beautiful photo (good resolution and as good tech quality as you can get) of this fan worm, but the tight crop and format ruins the overall impression. An almost square crop with a bit more space around the subject would be better IMO. Would you consider using this version as an alternative in this nomination? I've also fixed the file page for you. --Cart (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Haar Castle South in the Netherlands.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2019 at 18:33:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Netherlands
Info De Haar Castle is located in the Netherlands. The current buildings, all built upon the original castle, date from 1892 and are the work in a Neo-Gothic restoration project funded by the Rothschild family. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is a rather prominent stitching issue on the right, see note. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And near the bench too. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the hints. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, the line is gone from the sky, but it's still present left of the church, see note. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done fixed, thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support all of for me Ezarateesteban 19:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why have the grass in the foreground? Charles (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I kept it because more or less the water is not a lake but should be regarded as a moat. Consider that the whole structure was completly rebuilt in the 19th century. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I realise. thanks. I don't think it helps the composition for FP though with the seat there. Charles (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Toook out the bench --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Very high-quality of course, but I just don't think the cylindrical projection works for architecture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Without the bench --Llez (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The frame on the furthest left is blurrier than the others, but the resolution is of course excellent. Passes the bar for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prominent stitching errors on the right (walls, bridge). Also per King of Hearts, the projection makes the castle seem strangely distorted. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I fixed this one too. Thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's better but not entirely fixed. Maybe compare to this picture. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good colors. But the buildings look too distorted for me. May be that a better view is not possible. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not perfect but per Cmao the flaws do not do the picture in. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not convinced yet. Level of detail is undoubtedly impressive but the projection makes the central part look distorted (towers look flattened) and does not convey if the walls are "lining up" in reality. User:Spurzem already drew attention to this. Very good sharpness in the center but decreasing rapidly towards the sides. There seems to have been done some cloning in the trees left of the church tower, and for the sky, there’s colour banding all over the left half (and visible posterization). All in all, I think this has been overprocessed. Try a bit less saturation. --Kreuz schnabel 05:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laverty Falls1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2019 at 17:01:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada
Info: all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well done but I´m missing the "wow".--Ermell (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe not the most obviously 'wow' picture but good quality and well composed. Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Borbo cinnara (Rice swift) on a leaf.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2019 at 00:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Hesperiidae (Skippers)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 14:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice, we can forgive the far wing. Charles (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muy bien--Booth sift 03:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Hesperiidae (Skippers)

File:Catedral de Alejandro Nevski -- 2019 -- Sofía, Bulgaria.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2019 at 00:30:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info all by me -- Alurín (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alurín (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, a lot of green and red CAs --Llez (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is well captured, but there are technical issues: noise an CA (green fringes in many places). --Cayambe (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What a beautiful building! But there are both green and red CAs visible that need to be corrected. I also think it needs a bit of a perspective correction; both sides seem to be leaning in slightly (but only slightly). If you can make those corrections (if you have the RAW files it's usually possible to correct CA using the 'Lens Corrections' tab in Camera RAW) then it's a support from me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it isn't very sharp--Booth sift 03:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 05:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hidden Vlei Dune and Wind.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2019 at 15:02:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Namibia
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are of course already awesome dune FPs of Namibia, but I think this one is quite different due to the sand blowing over the top. I think this makes it a nice addition, but perhaps it is less spectacular than some other landscapes. --Domob (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, the sand blowing over the top definitely adds something new. No problems with image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But nothing is in focus, presumably because of the wind. Charles (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Focus is on the dune, so the shrubs in the foreground are out of it (as well as the background, but that still seems reasonably sharp to me). The top of the dune nevertheless is very soft, presumably because there are no well-defined lines to be sharp in the first place due to the shifting sand. I agree it looks a bit irritating, though. --Domob (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose QI, but not FP. Too random composition for me, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20 --Llez (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Kadellar.--Peulle (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blowing sand is of course a novelty with these dunes, but it is a small feature in an otherwise rather dull light photo of a dune. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, Cart, and Kadellar--Booth sift 07:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar --Fischer.H (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arbitrary crop blows it for me. I’d like to see the dune’s foot to the right at least. A bit noisy too (or is it all sand grains?). --Kreuz schnabel 05:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, Cart, and Kadellar. -- Karelj (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Travis Wetland panorama, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2019 at 10:34:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's Travis wetland, the last large freshwater wetland in Christchurch, New Zealand. It used to be a farm where the land was drained. Now the land has been restored and turned into a wetland again. It provides an important habitat for native birds. I like the light and that you can see many different bird species if you zoom in. -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I can't shake the impression it's tilted slightly, but I could be wrong. Cmao20 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ducks seem enjoying the spot :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better than the usual long-thin letterbox "view from a hilltop" we see nominated here. This has foreground interest all the way to mountains in the back. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! (You also gave me an idea for a photo. :-) ) --Cart (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. --Aristeas (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. And in the background there's an interesting reveal (that the hillsides are actually fairly well developed) that comes out at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ducks!--Booth sift 03:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brahmini bd.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2019 at 03:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brahminy kite (Haliastur indus)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Haliastur
Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really sharp, wing cut off --Llez (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llez. --Peulle (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support imho sharp enough for a photograph of a flying bird --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a 600mm lens this is quite good. Even if the wing fenders touch the edge, the framing is o.k.I find the picture very dymamic.--Ermell (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharp enough and would be good apart from the cut-off feathers. Charles (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles and Llez--Booth sift 07:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ermell. --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Claws and back feathers sharp, beak and eye sharp enough, nice color distribution (middle third, lower third), wow-colors of the bird itself, fitting background color --Axel ^(talk) 13:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clipped at the bottom. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clipped wing bugs me too. Otherwise good. --Cart (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dramatic and difficult capture but the clipped wing is very difficult to ignore, and the detail on the bird isn't the best either - look at the pixellation near the head. Cmao20 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice light conditions, framing could be better. --Ivar (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot unsee the cut-off wingtip, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 05:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vitascope.jpg, delisted and replaced

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2019 at 18:31:47

Current FP
Proposed replacement

Info It's not a bad copy, but it does have a lot of crease marks and other minor damage, which the restoration fixes. Plus the paper had clearly darkened a lot, which a slight levels adjustment corrects for and really makes the picture pop. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Peulle (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Charles (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Gnosis (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Ahmad^talk 13:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per above. Cmao20 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per others. --Cayambe (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per others.--Vulp here 09:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Per others--Booth sift 03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. --Cart (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winchester Cathedral Choir.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 05:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a category above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We have another FP of the choir, although taken from the opposite direction: File:Winchester Cathedral Choir, Hampshire, UK - Diliff.jpg. We also have a close-up of the high altar that is in the distance in your photo: File:Winchester Cathedral High Altar, Hampshire, UK - Diliff.jpg. Both these take a considerable difference in colour temperature and brightness, with yours very yellow and mostly bright. The cathedral is difficult because with out HDR, you get this sort of image, with extreme light and extreme dark. Here's another non-HDR of the high altar. I appreciate that at different times of the day and year, and different weather (clearly sunny here) the the lighting can change a log. But I think your photo is too warm yellow and not enough tonal range showing the dark wood of the choir against the light stone. You've certainly captured it well, just the processing seems off. -- Colin (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image quality, but I don't think this matches up to Diliff's pictures. As Colin says, the tonal range seems off - everything seems bunched together in the midtones, leading to a slightly flat image that just doesn't look dynamic and contrast-y. Particularly, there's not much definition in the masonry of the high altar, which is all very washed-out compared to Diliff's shot. Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too bright around the altar and windows. --Axel ^(talk) 08:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Axel. In a world without Diliff's photos I might well have supported, but we don't live in that world. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin--Booth sift 03:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:VentanasenEstocolmo.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2019 at 20:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Windows 2
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too bland for me, sorry. It's just a nice shot of some windows, nothing really special.--Peulle (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, sorry. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, a nice shot but I don't think it's special enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Fischer.H (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. This is not looking likely to succeed at this point ... perhaps it is time to withdraw the nomination? Daniel Case (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 12:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cascade de Saunhac 03.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2019 at 15:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, it's a lovely scene, but this style you have to raise the shadows and tone down highlights is not doing this photo any favors. For a waterfall, I'd expect at least some white. There is none here, the max bright spot is at 3% black and it makes the water look like sand. Even a quick mend with autocontrast in Photoshop makes it look better IMO. This is fixable, if you want to, so I'm not opposing yet. --Cart (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cart; reworked, it's better? Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is white in the photo now, but the processing still seems a bit off to me. --Cart (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above, sorry. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but per Cart. Something seems to be off. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The interesting action in the waterfall is too close to the top, making it feel like the water is flowing out of nowhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart; a lot of the water has a slightly unnatural bluish tinge. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart--Booth sift 03:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garten-5730.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 15:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Fringillidae (Finches and Allies)
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please provide the location of the photo. It is important to know where this bird was found. The file should also be changed to something better, describing what is in the photo. But please do that after the nomination is closed since it will mess up the codes otherwise. --Cart (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good capture and great illustration for articles, but the resolution is not very high, especially considering that the bird is off to one corner. The amount of pixels actually focussing on the bird is not very many, and the detail on the feathers should be better considering the small size. Cmao20 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree fully with Cmao20. Indeed nice, deservedly QI and probably VI for the juvenile bird, but the resolution is way below FP standard in bird photography. Plus, the composition does not work for me, at least I’d cut off the empty space on the top to not make the bird look so cornered. And the yellow blossom on left foreground is really, really distracting. --Kreuz schnabel 05:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also agree with Cmao20,, this is not on par with a majority of current featured pictures of birds. --Booth sift 05:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mainschleife Weinberge Herbst 140502-Pano.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2019 at 20:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Germany
Info Vineyards on the Main between Volkach and Fahr. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite pretty but I think this should be redone from RAW as the yellows (and even a the greens here and there) are badly clipping to various sized blobs. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Tried to fix that.--Ermell (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the improvement suggested by KennyOMG is possible I second it, but I also support the image right now: it just looks natural and great to me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any problem. Distinguishing each sunlit leaf of the same color from such a distance is close to impossible and it does not disturb the composition. I'd rather have some leaves merged than that infernal pushing highlights into the gray area that we sometimes see here. This photo sparkles with autumn colors, the way they are supposed to do. --Cart (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the sky is so empty, I would crop it a little. Yann (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done I agree. --Ermell (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colour looks too unnaturally glare to me. I think to much contrast. The whole picture is posterized (especially clearly visible at the leave of the shrubbery on the right side for example). --Hockei (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that suggested improvements have been made. Could be better, but it's gotten over the bar. Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuiKa27 (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Northern Electric N415H 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 16:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info all by -- Cephas (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty cool. Something we don't see every day. --Peulle (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like the last owner had a dog. --Cart (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a cat... --Cephas (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. :) --Cart (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, nice to see something different. Cmao20 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 08:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can you clean up the sensor dust spot in the top left, and also the scuff marks on the wall near the bottom of the handset. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done --Cephas (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chute Montmorency panorama.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2019 at 03:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada
Info: all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the crop is too tight on top and bottom --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprised this has got so few votes. It's a dramatic view of a waterfall with a good composition, and although Uoaei1 is right to some extent, I don't think there would be much visual interest added by extending the crop. Cmao20 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1 Poc o² 15:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1 Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – crop too tight. Since the sky is blinking through the trees on the top left, I’d prefer to see all of them plus the building on the top side. This way, the image is focusing on the actual waterfall only in a matter-of-fact way, framing out all of its context. Blows all the wow to me. --Kreuz schnabel 05:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1 --Booth sift 03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maroilles ,moulin de l 'Abbaye.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2019 at 09:29:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Two views of the Watermills Abbaye in Maroilles (File:Maroilles ,moulin de l 'Abbaye.jpg and File:Maroilles Le Moulin de l'Abbaye en2019 (6).jpg) created by Pierre André Leclercq - uploaded by Pierre André Leclercq - nominated by Pierre André Leclercq Pierre André Leclercq -- Pierre André ^(talk) 09:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André ^(talk) 09:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question So is this an alternative crop of the image below? If so, I think you should add it as an alternative to that nomination rather than making a separate nomination. As for what I think of it, it avoids the shadow at the bottom-right, but the resolution is not as high. I would be happy to see either version featured, and will vote for whichever one gets the most support. Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Cmao20 an alternative to my first nomination. Thank you for your advice. Best regards,--Pierre André ^(talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ok, Pierre André Leclercq you are new to this thing with alternatives so you don't really know how this is done. Your noms are a bit messy at the moment and not right according to the rules and practice here. What you have done here is a version of a set nomination, not an alternative. I'll sort this out for you. --Cart (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've moved the alternative photo to your original nomination along with your support vote for it. Now you need to formally withdraw this second faulty nomination by placing the {{withdraw}} at the bottom of this and sign it. After that voting will continue on your original nom. --Cart (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cart Thank you for your advice, --Pierre André ^(talk) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Pierre André ^(talk) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Im Thumkuhlental-Tunnel.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2019 at 20:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Mtrienke - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very nice idea but currently too dark, no need for the outside area to be so grey. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH - it's a good capture, but a little too dark for me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, just underexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bladder wrack in Sämstad harbor 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2019 at 09:07:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Class : Phaeophyceae
Info An algae we usually see as a tangled, often dried, mess on beaches. Fresh in clean water, it looks like flying over a small forest on a hill. (The only other FP of this I could find, is located at /Places/Natural.) All by me, -- Cart (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's that pattern upper left? Charles (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's surface ripples going in different directions and interfering with each other so you can even get a checkered pattern, especially when it's enhanced by sunlight. The photo is taken from a jetty, so not an underwater photo. Even when the water is very calm you get small waves from fish and other creatures living in and about the wrack. The waves bounce off stones and the jetty's poles and become tiny ripples. It's impossible to avoid. I think I took about 60-70 photos of this patch and this is the one where ripples are least obstructive. The second best was this. --Cart (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My favourite part of the photo is the wave on the left top. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart's above explanation for its apparent flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx Cmao20! I could of course visit the local aquarium and get photos without waves, but like with animals, it's nicer to get the photos in a natural habitat. In this case even a watertight house for the camera wouldn't work since these algae grow in the surface zone. This is the only way to get photos of these little forests from above. Ripples and waves are the "water equivalent" of haze in the air; sometimes unavoidable. At least they can also add to a photo. ;-) --Cart (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 09:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one of Cart's images that finds the magic in the mundane and evokes some Cocteau Twins' album covers. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. Too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuiKa27 (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Other lifeforms#Class : Phaeophyceae

File:Lori Berd, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 69.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2019 at 15:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Armenia
Info Ruined armenian church inside Lori Berd (Lori Fortress), a 11th-century fortress located in the Lori Province, Armenia. The fortress was built by David Anhoghin to become the capital of Kingdom of Tashir-Dzoraget in 1065. Note, there is another FP of this subject, but I believe that this view is much better. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 15:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 15:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 18:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karlholms bruk 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 14:07:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Sweden
Info A now-closed ironworks in Karlholmsbruk, Sweden, at the mouth of the river Tämnarån, with workers' housing and a clock tower visible. created by Vivo - uploaded by Vivo - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sadly the top of the tree in the reflection is cut off, conversely you have a bit too much sky. A symmetrical view would be better --Llez (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind that the tree is cut, I enjoy the reflection anyway. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kawanan Rusa.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 13:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deers)
Info created by Candra Firmansyah - uploaded by Candra Firmansyah - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and excellent -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice photo, but why are borders white? --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michielverbeek, it looks like this species of deer has the same Velvet antler that the rest of the Cervidae family has. The very fine velvety hairs catch the light and you get these "borders" in photos. --Cart (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Ok --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chaotic. -- Karelj (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some animals partly cropped off --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Karelj--Booth sift 03:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LuiKa27 (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deers)

File:Pantai sejile.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 13:43:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Indonesia
Info created by Candra Firmansyah - uploaded by Candra Firmansyah - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks nice, but there are many good nature photos out there and in 2019, this resolution doesn't really impress me.--Peulle (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors, very good for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive composition but is this (see note) an error? --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I find 4.16 MPX not ehough for a landscape photo. Also, the cigarette but on the sand kind of spoils it for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good indeed, but too much downsized. --Ivar (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Podzemnik and Peulle. Dramatic shot, but 4.16 mpx really isn't likely to cut it nowadays, especially in this crowded genre. Cmao20 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support with more resolution. --Yann (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground too dominant for me, crop suggestion added. Main reason to oppose is the image size per others. At such a small size, I expect a crisp sharp image but it’s still soft. Look at the annotation on the image description page pointing out the sky on the horizon. --Kreuz schnabel 05:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Peulle. Another lockscreen-quality image, but just too small. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 03:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shadhu in Pasupatinath Temple-1973.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2019 at 05:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info Shadhu sitting inside Pandra Shivalaya in Pasupatinath Temple created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice framing. Yann (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice framing, yes, emphasized by the contrast between the colourful clothes and the subdued colours of the building. --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, and per Aristeas, the first thing I thought was how the brightness of the clothes absolutely jumps out compared to the monochrome backdrop. Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one I like --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support I do wish detail on the window surround, the arch especially, were as sharp as the man. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The framing is not ideal and there is more space on the left side, but the man is in focus and the composition is great. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Sitting people

File:Anatra Mandarina01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 17:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Aix
Info created by Elio Pallard - uploaded by Elio Pallard - nominated by Yiyi -- Yiyi (Dimmi!) 17:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yiyi (Dimmi!) 17:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mimihitam (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm no expert when it comes to birds or animals in general (understatement of the month) but this photo works as "an image" as well. Seems slightly front focused (or rather insufficient DoF) but that doesn't detract from the general aesthetic imho. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I find the bottom crop too tight, I wish the photographer pointed the camera a bit lower. Also, I don't find the quality or the posture extraordinary enough to support another mandarine duck photo (we already have 6 FP of this species). --Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other FP are not standing like this one. The tight bottom crop stresses the precarious one-legged balancing on the edge. I like it. Great background aesthetic, too. --Axel ^(talk) 14:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No definition. Has there been too much NR or something? Charles (talk)
Weak Oppose - A nice picture of a beautiful bird, but considering we aren't lacking for photos of this species, the sharpness of the head seems lacking. Also, what is that patch of noise just above the head? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites and Podzemnik. It's an absolutely beautiful bird, but we have plenty of FPs of it already, and I think a fair few of them are better. Cmao20 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 03:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snota peek seen from Bossvasshøgda.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 19:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Norway
Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frankemann (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment too blue? Charles (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Shall I try to adjust the white balance? --Frankemann (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you! Charles (talk

) 12:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Adjusted the white balance. --Frankemann (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Charles may be right, but I still like the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pixel-level detail is poor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The compo is not working for me, sorry Poc o² 15:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, just good quality image. -- Karelj (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Poco--Booth sift 03:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock Glen Falls.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 05:47:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: all by me. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the rocks had been sharp, maybe it would have worked. But the water could be even more diffuse. Actually it only works with a tripod.--Ermell (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. It also has a lot of green/purple chromatic aberration. --Cart (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination: thanks for the comments, just realized I have better photos from this set, will come back. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vernazza panorama.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 05:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
Info: all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed a possible place to make a FP, but it was not the right moment. Light is not good and the sky is too dull, sorry. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Beautiful place and good resolution, but I find the bottom crop too tight, with how it cuts off the pier and part of a building. Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Cmao - Bijay chaurasia (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination: I might be able to produce a better crop. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisbon Praça do Comércio BW 2018-10-03 13-31-10.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2019 at 08:12:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments_and_memorials
Info created by Berthold Werner - uploaded by Berthold Werner - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice QI but I'm afraid that neither the light or the quality strikes me enough to consider this as one of the finest picture on Commons. Maybe you can try to come back and try to take a shot of the monument when the fence is not there, people don't rest in the shadow of the statue and the light is more appealing (early morning or evening usually provide more striking conditions :). Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Podzemnik has said it all. This is a fine image and a good QI but we have stronger images of statues on Commons, one's that are shot under less harsh light and that have less distracting elements in the frame (i.e. the fence and the people). Cmao20 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good lighting, beautiful colors, good sharpness. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik. -- Karelj (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Podzemnik, this is definitely a QI but too static to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 03:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otira River in Arthur's Pass National Park, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2019 at 03:50:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's a small stream in Arthur's Pass National Park. The light and the shooting conditions were quite harsh (windy, obviously cold, no light on my side) so the technical quality is not as good as I'd wish for. Nevertheless, I thought that I'd give it a shot anyway as I think that the view is worth it. -- Podzemnik (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent.--Ermell (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good capture, I had to put on a warm jacket just to look closely at it. :-) --Cart (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me want to go hiking in the mountains.--Peulle (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition of different water types. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So much to see, all centered around the vertical axis: great --Axel ^(talk) 00:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ice makes a nice feature -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't sure, but I do like it. Charles (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, this looks great. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others: just great. --Aristeas (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 06:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rhacophorus nigropalmatus.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2019 at 21:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created by Rushenb - uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by B2Belgium -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very good composition, beautiful colors: excellent -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot. Charles (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow: Toes are quite different from all other FPs in this category --Axel ^(talk) 00:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a frog! --Podzemnik (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Spurzem. --Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why haven't I voted sooner? --Booth sift 04:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 06:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vista general del Kremlin, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 18-19 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2019 at 15:32:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
Info Night view of the Moscow Kremlin, meaning "fortress inside a city", a fortified complex in the center of Moscow, Russia. It is the best known of the kremlins (Russian citadels) and includes five palaces, four cathedrals, the enclosing Kremlin Wall with Kremlin towers and the Grand Kremlin Palace, former Tsar's Moscow residence. The complex now serves as the official residence of the President of the Russian Federation. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 15:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 15:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality picture considering it's a night shot and it's quite high-resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 18:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a bit heavy on the sky, but otherwise very fine.--Peulle (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 06:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:European roller (Coracias garrulus) 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2019 at 09:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Coraciidae (Rollers)
Info The rings on this roller are very significant. A €5m conservation project for the European roller was started near Kecskemét in Hungary in 2014. Hundreds of nest boxes were constructed and the project, still ongoing, has been a huge success. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality as ever. Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantástico --Booth sift 04:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 17:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Coraciidae (Rollers)

File:Snowy-bellied hummingbird (Amazilia edward niveoventer) 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2019 at 09:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Apodiformes_(Hummingbirds_and_Swifts)
Info 'Uncommon' hummingbird restricted to Costa Rica, Panama and part of Columbia. Size: 9cm. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary creature. Excellent quality given its small size. Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 17:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Apodiformes_(Hummingbirds_and_Swifts)

File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - West Point Hat Toss.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 10:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info I saw this on the en-WP Main Page a while ago and I think it is a visually really great photo. It is a bit on the small side, but we are not likely to get a better size anytime soon since the hat toss ceased in 2010. I was thinking about putting it in '/Historical' since it is now in the past, but I don't think it's a historically important event.Striked per comment below. Created by Unknown photographer, U.S. Army - uploaded by Matanya - nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question I was curious about the hat toss ending in 2010. So I googled it. This photo you nominated said it's Class of 2012. But you said hat toss ended in 2010. Plus there's this photo [2] taken of a West Point hat toss in 2017. I did not find anything about the hat toss ending. But I did find this photo [3], an en wiki FP, of the US Naval Academy hat toss saying it started there in 1912. I'm pretty sure they do this at the US Air Force Academy too. I like this photo and will likely vote for it but am simply curious about where you found something that said the hat toss tradition ended. Seven Pandas (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was wondering why this was two years after but thought it was a glitch in the upload. Taking another look, I had misread a part of the section in the article and missed that the stopping of the hat toss was in India. My bad. So there might be better photos to come, but I still think this is a great photo and I'll keep the nom. The WP FP you linked to is good, but I find this a better compo with a sunny disposition and mixed gender/race graduates. Thanks for correcting me, --Cart (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fair enough. I like this photo too. Seven Pandas (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may be a little small, but this is definitely better than the one that's FP on ENwiki. Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: resolution is way too low even by 2012 standards, geometrically distorted building in the background, lot of motion blur due to incorrect exposure --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the small tilt in the photo, but full perspective correction is usually not done when the main subject is people or objects(hats) that would be totally distorted by such an edit. --Cart (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not. But it does reduce the already insufficient resolution. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, but I prefer the original. In the edited example, the building suddenly overtakes the people as subject in the photo. IMO the perfect-square-photography is often adhered to a bit too rigorously on this forum. It can take away creativity and liveliness in photos. --Cart (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Let's keep architectural perspective for architectural photos. If you are worrying about tilt and sloping verticals in a people-photo, then you are looking at the wrong thing -- Colin (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, people-photographers can get away with downsampling and not bothering with correct exposure? Cool, good to know. Obvious geometrical distortion sometimes works in architectural photos, ironically enough. Elsewhere, it is a nuisance that's easy to correct. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you mixing things up now? The comments above are about perspective correction, not downsampling or exposure. Anyway, we have several examples where the "wow" factor of a photo overrides technical shortcomings (regardless of subject), that is allowed. --Cart (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. It says fairly unequivocally in my vote that I oppose due to low resolution as well. I agree that the "wow" factor may occasionally take precedence, but tossed blurry hats somehow fail to make this impression on me. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cart -- Colin (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this photo was taken with a Canon 70D, full resolution is available here, but the license is incompatible. The current version represents a ×7 loss of resolution. Lots of nominators have faced obstruction for just a small fraction of that. I'd like to see some consistency in the way we interpret and apply the guidelines. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing and informing us. There are probably those who feel the same way you do and it's up to them if they want to 'oppose' this photo on those grounds. --Cart (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If this is not the full resolution available and has been downsized, then it dosen't comply does it? Charles (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, AFAIK photos can be available in two versions with two licenses; one smaller that is free and one larger that has some restrictions and is not free. Artists often use this way of spreading their work. --Cart (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm not obliged yet to pick a side--Booth sift 04:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite small resolution and not exciting for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - spectacular scene, but low resolution is disappointing — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small in 2019. No metadata -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small for me to say "wow", I'm afraid.--Peulle (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks all, it was worth a try. --Cart (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Octopus vulgaris 03.jpg

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Cephalopoda
Info created & uploaded by Llez - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting and a good QI, but quite blurry and with a lot of colour fringing in places. Cmao20 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the tech issues noted above, it's sort of chaotic and I'm not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, I am not wowed. I have an interest in marine biology and sorry, this is not the best octopus picture I have seen. Still pretty good though--Booth sift 04:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monasterio Khor Virap, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 09-14 PAN.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2019 at 22:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Armenia
Info View of Khor Virap, an Armenian monastery and one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in Armenia located in the Ararat plain with the Mount Ararat in the background. Khor Virap's notability as a monastery and pilgrimage site is due to the fact that Gregory the Illuminator, religious leader who converted Armenia from paganism to Christianity in 301, becoming the first nation to adopt Christianity as its official religion, was initially imprisoned here for 14 years by King Tiridates III of Armenia. A chapel was initially built in 642 by Nerses III the Builder as a mark of veneration to Saint Gregory. Over the centuries, it was repeatedly rebuilt and the current appearance dates from 1662. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 22:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: would be better without the people in the foreground, but it's a minor issue. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main object is too shadowed for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of your sharpest panoramas. You already have this FP, which is great and dramatic, but this one is better. It complements the other one by showing the monastery from a different angle, and it's also really interesting to scroll through and explore all the beautiful landscape. You have some great photos from Armenia, and I might nominate some if you don't get to them first :) Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, turns out I have a nomination slot free, so I've put one up for vote. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you do something about the sky? Charles (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Visible stitch in the sky (color change, left side) + very visile halo around the temple. Will suppot if these are fixed - but not sure if it's possible (especially the sky). -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, KennyOMG: I improved the sky and removed the halo Poc o² 22:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michiel, sorry --Booth sift 04:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. It's a nice scene, but I don't find it photographically appealing. The light is hars, people everywhere. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Podzemnik --Fischer.H (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I give up. At least is the current version better than the initial, I believe Poc o² 18:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-06-12 14-18-42-vue-doubs.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2019 at 08:51:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created & uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty, but the light is quite flat and greyish. Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice QI but I don't find it particularly wowy, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gawthorpe Hall exterior.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 05:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a category above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow. The angle is not brilliant; some steps to the right and a stronger zoom might have given a beautiful composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has wow for me, and is very high-resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the tulip shaped distortion of the building.--Christof46 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. -- Karelj (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meh, not too interesting--Booth sift 03:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I half expect to see the credits for some acclaimed TV costume drama to start. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osteolaemus tetraspis - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 02:31:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by and uploaded by Llez - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 02:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 02:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different from the previous, and striking also -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Boothsift for the nomination --Llez (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is much better than the other. Better POV etc. Charles (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support striking. --Aristeas (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 07:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skylines of the Central Business District, Singapore at dusk.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 03:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice shot, but what about trimming off some of the Marina Bay Sands shopping buildings at the bottom? Charles (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the blue neon lights match the sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, just a suggestion. Charles (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful view of a wonderful city. Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me want to go there --Booth sift 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Excellent photo. Great composition. Beautiful colors.— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a02:a03f:3d7a:2100:c800:30d1:478c:e558 (talk) 15 September 2019‎ (UTC10:08)

Invalid vote. Sorry, unregistered IPs cannot vote here. If you are a registered user who forgot to log in, you might want to have an admin delete this edit to keep your IP hidden. --Cart (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Urbanistička cjelina Makarske.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 12:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Croatia
Info created by SKas - uploaded by SKas - nominated by SKas -- KSK (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KSK (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow on the statue is distracting, and there are many overexposed areas on the houses. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at the new version, please--KSK (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but the statue still isn't very inspiring and it looks like the highlight recovery was not entirely successful. There are weird grey edges surrounding certain white parts, suggesting that those white areas were permanently lost and the values were simply pulled back from 255 without actually producing any more detail. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice composition, but sadly the image quality is not quite as good, the colours are a bit blocky in places and as KoH points out there are a lot of overexposed areas. That said, this could IMO be an FP with better processing from RAW. Cmao20 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RAW file reworked: shadow removed, highlights, saturation, and more. Please take a look at the new version. Thank you for your comments--KSK (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Not perfect, but better in a lot of ways. Thanks KSK for making these corrections. Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI, but statue is not excellent composed (too much shadows) --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at the new version, please--KSK (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately for me the statue and the scenery are competing tightly to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuiKa27 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:A dip in the road in Färlev.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 13:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info All by me, --Cart (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looked quite nice when I looked at it small size, but when I saw the full version I realized that the house was pretty new. I was expecting a rustic scene with a nice old farm or something, but with a new building the wow is a bit diminished for me.--Peulle (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing I can do about your taste in houses. (There are some older ones further down the road.) :-) To me the new almost perfect house, plonked down here in the middle of nowhere, adds to the rather surreal scene with that wonky road. --Cart (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

- Question why is the age of a house a valid oppose? Seven Pandas (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the subject either contains a wow factor or not. In FPC, such evaluations are highly subjective.--Peulle (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked the rules, there's nothing about wow factor. This must have developed over time because I see it mentioned a lot. I think the wow factor is over rated but I'm also sure it's not going away. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "wow-factor" is a short way of describing the last section of COM:FPC#Photographs: Symbolic meaning or relevance … image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion …. --Cart (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Definitely super subjective. Seven Pandas (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's always fun to see what things might come up in the votes on a nom. :) I've even had an oppose partially based on that the photo evoked bad smell. Nothing surprise me anymore, but we have to respect how people feel about something. --Cart (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Seven Pandas: Check again. The Guidelines say that: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor" and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality.". It annoys me when people point out that I have made a mistake when the mistake is really their own. Be more thorough when checking up on me next time. --Peulle (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: Check again. The word "wow" does not appear in the rules. Cart's response was the way to handle this, not your feeble attempt to attack me. Be more thorough next time. Seven Pandas (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Seven Pandas Jesus H Christ ... does nobody ever read the actual rules? Either you need to get new glasses or you need to brush up on your English. I linked you directly to the wording before and I do so again: Here are the rules. In bulletpoint #2, that's line #3 from the top of the page (so it's not like you had to read very far to find it), it says, and I once again quote: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor" and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. ". Is there something about this you don't understand?--Peulle (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: and @Jesus H. Christ: we've all understood already. No need to sabotage the format indefinitely. Seven Pandas will get the {{Ping}} whatever the place on this thread, including the appropriate one. Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." The main page states "Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is where the "wow factor" section is -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, would you please stop this infernal obsession you have about indentations and discussion timelines. Your proposal for enforcing your version of the rules for them was shot down in flames at both ANI and Wikipedia talk:Indentation. Now you have gone and moved around Seven Pandas' and Peulle's comments to suit your taste in which order they should be, instead of the order these users wrote them in. That is not acceptable. You should not dictate how people write threads. --Cart (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. en:Wikipedia:INDENT: "If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level" (point number 2). Clarity is important, and W.carter is completely wrong to say the hierarchy was moved "to suit my taste". The indentation was fixed per the convention rules. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is never ok to move another users comment to another position in a tread. --Cart (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the position is misplaced, yes it is. And it's also allowed to collapse an out-of-topic section like this. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you try to write your own rules. --Cart (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The rules have been written by others and they are explicit: Talk page guidelines#EDIT Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels". [OK] Done. Anything else? We collapse all the out-of-topic discussions here (1, 2, 3...) A good habit -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good composition, good colors and good sharpness. I need no "wow" – whatever it means – -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A cleverly composed image; could almost be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary, not anything special, no wow, sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and mood are outstanding in my eyes and quality is corresponding. --Milseburg (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michielverbeek Poc o² 15:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have a lot of landscape pictures and this one is too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dip in the road. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah the dip in the road--Booth sift 05:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me think of this B.C. comic strip. Highlights on the cloud in center could be suppressed a bit more, I think. I take it that it was sort of windy that day? Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LuiKa27 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support you can't even tell that the dip careens down into a giant abyss! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dornfelder P1240238.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 16:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Vitaceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A rather messy and unbalanced composition with the branches in front of the grapes and the cut bunch. Some of your own photos have better compo than this, like for example File:Gewürztraminer P1120136.jpg. --Cart (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More bottom and less top might have been a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the composition seems somewhat random and unbalanced, but I like the picture Cart mentions, and would vote for it. Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What Michielverbeek wrote--Booth sift 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Cart, we have better photos of grapes growing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edvard Munch - Madonna (1894-1895).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 16:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Nudes
Info created by Børre Høstland at the Norwegian National Museum - uploaded by 4ing - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent details. I know I am looking to my computer screen, but it looks like I am standing just before the painting. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - YES it is GREAT. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, this is a famous and wonderful painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek. --Aristeas (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mohnblüte 2019-05-30 11-00-41 (C).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2019 at 07:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Papaveraceae
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice center, but two concerns regarding lower 20%: violet/pink dots and areas (reflection?) and unnatural bokeh (FS artifact?). --Axel ^(talk) 08:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How natural Bokeh can be here I don't know. The blur comes from the petals that are not in focus, but in this case the lens is too close to the object. Yes, the purple or pink dots are light reflections.--Ermell (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the frame-filling composition. But please can you be more specific in the nomination with your FP category, to include the family of plant with a # anchor. -- Colin (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The relflection/highlights and the lower unsharp petal give the photo life and depth. A totally homogeneous red crinklyness covering the photo would be boring. --Cart (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin and Cart. Something different within the flower-photo genre. Cmao20 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please define the species. -- -donald- (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blossom is clearly categorized.--Ermell (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just add it to the description. Not much people read categories. --Ivar (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another Cocteau Twins album cover-looking image. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 06:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tour Saint-Jacques au crépuscule.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2019 at 05:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created and uploaded by Fabien Barrau - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and very Parisian. Cmao20 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great way to get in the lights on the Eiffel Tower while complying with French copyright law. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check what I'm going to say, but last time I talked about this, the trend was to seat on that lighting scheme copyrighting. I was told that the claim was abusive and that it would likely not withstand trial. - Benh (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VARIO Anastigmat 121337 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2019 at 20:06:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical devices
Info all by -- Cephas (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think, compared to our other FPs of cameras, the wooden table top here is a bit distracting, and limits its usefulness. -- Colin (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the table-top too much considering the otherwise strong image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In terms of framing I'd prefer more at the top and less at the bottom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I find the background disturbing. Either shoot it against all white or all wood (or some other uniform surface), the bi-color distracts from the camera itself. --Cart (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a built-in stand to cameras like this, clearly visible with this arrangement, but not in a void. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin --Booth sift 04:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soissons Cathedral Nave, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2019 at 14:17:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

The nave of Soissons Cathedral, Picardy, France, looking east
The nave of Soissons Cathedral, Picardy, France, looking west

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
Info Two views in opposite directions of the nave of Soissons Cathedral, a Gothic basilica church in France constructed between 1177 and 1479. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great again. --Aristeas (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chernobyl 2019 G15.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2019 at 13:29:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ruins of abandoned apartment building in Chernobyl after the 1986 nuclear accident.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, but more information about the location is needed to be FP status. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Geocode and former address added -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Almost poetic to see how quickly these places were reclaimed by nature after the accident. Quality is OK considering the high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but not very sharp and the light of the flash is harsh. -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flashlight per B2Belgium. --Cart (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per B2Belgium. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; also really the composition is just so random. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes the comp is pretty random--Booth sift 04:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an Fp for me. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Tetlin, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-24, DD 22-30 PAN.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 18:54:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
Info Landscape in the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 18:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I no longer come here often, but it looks I see these everytime. Same complaints from me. Long boring aspect ratio, straightforward composition, uninteresting lighting, and tight framing. I also feel that the panorama bends downward on the right side. - Benh (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very scenic and high-resolution. I like the view especially at the right with the clouds over the mountains. Nice sharpness and fun to scroll around; however, it's worth checking if Benh is right that the panorama is bending down on the right a little. Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Benh --Booth sift 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I fully understand Benh's point --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Entirely agree with Benh, I'm totally bored of these long thin panoramas that have zero composition (not just Poco). I'm sure it was a nice view when you were there, with 3D vision and the gentle breeze in your hair. But this is not photography. This is just sweeping the camera around while pressing click, click, click. Where is the great light or composition arrangement of elements? Everything is tiny in the frame, which is mostly grass and trees. There's a hint of some interesting mountains in the distance. There's a massive dustspot that is visible even in the thumb, which just about sums everything up for me in the nomination of old material. -- Colin (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the picture, but I agree with you that the best bit about it is the interesting mountains in the distance. In some ways I would almost prefer a crop about 40% the way along so that the focus was on the right-hand side of the panorama, which is much more interesting than the left. But it's worth pointing out that great light is hard to come by in Alaska. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that be? The golden hour is even longer. Chance of northern lights too. We get plenty overcast dull days or rainy days in the UK but that isn't an excuse for me. The point is this is a "I happened to be here at this time and got out of my car on the Alaska highway" photo rather than some of the mountain hikes we see from Podzemnik. There's no subject, just a lazy "grab everything" panorama, which seem to be about half the photos from these trips. The cylindrical projection naturally bends the top (mountain) and bottom (lakeside, river) so many of these panoramas are very distorted when you compare to the reality... but there is no geocoding, and nothing more specific in the description than a national park of 2,833 km², which is like me saying "Somewhere in the Lake District". -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin: you are indeed an absolute expert when it comes to demotivate anybody to contribute in this project. Poc o² 20:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing someone demotivating others here, but more a message of "no, not all the pictures you take in a trip is worth FP label". It is still possible to upload pictures for the sole purpose of having them available for articles illustration or just adding up to the Commons repository. - Benh (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up reviewing your lazy nominations a while back. I only popped in after I saw Benh's review and saw it was a bit lonely. These cylindrical projection panoramas, they're all a bit rubbish. I know you took hundreds of them and are determined to nominate every bloody one in your back catalogue, but please no. Let's have some photos with composition and where you have actually sought out great light. Remember, for all the easy unspectacular FPs you get, there are many others here who see their new fresh work picked apart for dust spots, wonky horizons, boring composition, no wow, etc, etc. At least they tried. You aren't even trying any more. What does it mean, Poco, to be a photographer if you aren't trying to be a better photographer tomorrow? The rest of us take the criticism we get at FPC and try to improve our next photographs. You, you stopped uploading new photos a while back, in some huge sulk. And do let me know when you are offering at least as many reviews as your FPCs require each month. Because "contributing to Commons" also involves doing your share of reviewing, praising and criticising other's photos too. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin: first you call my work "rubbish" and they you criticize that the photographer delivering rubbish does not get more in reviewing the works of others here? I don't get it. Poc o² 21:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of your clause is nonsense and bears no resemblance to what I wrote. But the first half. Let's be clear so I'll say it again. These cylindrical projection panoramas, they're all a bit rubbish. That isn't "my[your] work". Just some of it. Well, hundreds of the bloody things to be honest. If you can't deal with folk thinking some of your photos are "a bit rubbish" then please stop nominating and go out and take some better ones. Do your fair share of reviewing, take, upload and nominate an excellent photo with great composition and light, and I'll give you a big green support template. How about that for some motivation? Most other people seem to manage. -- Colin (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm talking about: this one is photography, with the monastery, mountain and nearby hill all arranged and filling the frame, and the light bringing out the form of these. It was nominated shortly after you took it, so clearly you thought it was one of your best. It got 23 supports. Whereas this one is not photography, it is merely standing on a high point and rotating while pressing the shutter. We get a strong distortion of reality, and lots of tiny elements in a fairly empty canvas. It was nominated years after you took it. It got 4 supports, including your own, and five opposes before you withdrew. Concentrate on nominating photos you think will get 20+ supports, and learn from your failed noms,and take and upload some new material. I'd understand if, after all the years you've been here, you got failed noms that were experimental and radical, but you get failed noms that are boring with obvious flaws you should have noticed, or that are similar to existing FPs you've already got. That just makes reviewing your work tedious, especially when you don't review your share. You still haven't fixed the geocoding or the dust spot, which is basic stuff. -- Colin (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's comments are valid from a photographic perspective. But I consider his accusations that Poc o²'s photos have "zero composition", that he is "lazy" and that his nominations are "rubbish" are offensive. Are there any sanctions available? If not, perhaps it is time for this POTY winner to submit some photographs of his own for us to vote on. And I don't believe there is any harm in nominating old material. I have dozens of photos I've taken that I could consider nominating. And Poco is a regular voter. Charles (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, it is quite acceptable to make serious accusations provided there is evidence. We have here a nomination of a landscape photo with no closer location information than a national park of 2,833 km² and a very obvious dust spot in thumb. So I'm quite happy that those accusations, of a regular who knows the standards others are expected to meet, are amply supported by evidence. I don't think you'd let me off with "Lake in East Anglia.jpg". Charles, there are plenty nominations where you have opposed with one word "composition", so please don't lecture me about my point that a ~180° panorama has "zero composition". Of course it does. The point about old material, in case you haven't noticed, is that old material is all Poco has nominated for a long time. Poco is a very occasional voter, but serial nominator. He requires more review time per FP than anyone else here. He's actually received more oppose votes this month than he has given reviews himself, so we're a long way from doing as much as others do. -- Colin (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we are recycling arguments made by all many months ago and no progress since then. Seems pointless to waste any more time here. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made it clear that Colin's comments are valid from a photographic perspective. My post complains about Colin's offensive language, nothing else. I am really surprised that most other voters here don't seem to mind. Charles (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: Well I also think Colin might be a little harsh on his wording, but I think what he says often make sense. At least he has the courtesy of developping his opinion rather than making friendly votes or avoid opposing. The point with Poco is that it seems he's only hunting FP stars, and is careless in his noms. Most noms here seem much more carefully thought. Poco will simply nominate ALL his backlog and ensure he has always two active noms to make the most of it. We all come back with thousands of pictures of our trips. Only he doesn't filter as much as we do, ruining the value of an FP overall (what's the point of getting a star if a picture like this is promoted??). I'd rather point this out. - Benh (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very valid point Benh! Thanks so much for stating that. And regarding the geocode, I have been adding it to nearly all of my uploads for 6-7 years now; I wonder how many of Poco's uploads have geocode. As it seems, if only his FPC nominated pictures would all have one, this would be a huge progress. But useless to request it from someone for whom it's only about his own convenience and FP count. --A.Savin 14:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I interrupt this "let's cover Poco with shit" party? Will not answer each individual comment as I've other things to do, but I do feel that I'm a regular nominator and reviewer here, as I am in QI. I travel often (like in the last 2 weeks) and I don't have the needed bandwidth to download and review images, nominating is easier as I prepare the candidates when I'am at home. I've added geodata to most of my FPCs and some QI (whenever somebody asks for it). Of course that I distinguish between solid and acceptable FPs and see no drama to nominate also the latter. Ruining FP would be accepting images as FP which shouldn't, but that's rather up to reviewers no the nominators. Yes, Colin is often rude in his language, which is a constant when I am the subject. Poc o² 19:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others, now wow + missing precise location. --A.Savin 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clouds and contrasting color palette make this image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's nice, but I can't shake the déjà vu on this. Geocode would also be good, I think we should expect that same standard for landscape photos from most regular contributors. I don't have a GPS on my camera, but I know where I've been so I go on Google maps to find the location for my photos. --Cart (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a new version (crop, curves, dust spot) and added geodata Poc o² 19:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer this crop. Is it worth pinging the two undecided/neutral voters here? Cmao20 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. This is a totally different crop. You can't just cut out half the photo and not notify everyone who voted. You should have kept the original and uploaded the crop as a separate file and offered it here as an alt. That's the normal process. Many of the comments above are about the extra wide panorama and you've just invalidated them all by breaking our clear policy on file overwriting, which specifically disallows a radical crop. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Game over Poc o² 19:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speargrass Creek Route to Angelus Hut, Nelson Lakes National Park, New Zealand 09.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 23:28:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#New Zealand
Info created and uploaded by Podzemnik - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 23:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 23:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. - Benh (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. This is a good QI with the typical Podzemnik quality, but I just don't find it interesting enough, it could be any snowy scene anywhere. It's carefully composed, but does not wow me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews--Booth sift 22:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, BMW Mini -- 2019 -- 7207-13.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2019 at 10:22:18 (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 10:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info I know, there are other FP's with similar cars. But I like this photograph so much ... It was made with a little help of a light from the left. --XRay ^talk 10:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 10:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, I think it works very well. Cmao20 (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Better than the images in the offical advertising booklet for that car (I have compared it ;)). --Aristeas (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well-balanced photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. I like that the car's shadow fits perfectly on the wood pile! --Gyrostat (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better than the existing similar FP. Charles (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Charles--Booth sift 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:De Rotterdam, September 2019 - 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2019 at 17:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Netherlands
Info Detail of the facade of De Rotterdam, a building on the Wilhelminapier in the Kop van Zuid neighborhood in Rottderdam, designed by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture in 1998. The complex is located between the KPN Tower and the Rotterdam Cruise Terminal and was finalized at the end of 2013. The design provides space for offices, a hotel, and apartments; all my me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, nothing interesting, just piece of building... -- Karelj (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice abstract work. Cmao20 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea but it would have worked bette IMHO if the black area would have been not so significant (too close to the bottom) --Poc o² 13:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the diagonal of the black area marks the lower third of the image, so I would disagree that it's too close to the bottom. But that's also a matter of taste, I guess, as always. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 09:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! --Aristeas (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elephant Trunk.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2019 at 03:34:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by and uploaded by Cpayoub - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 03:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 03:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given NASA's capabilities and other FPs of this type, I don't think this resolution gives us one of the finest images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: The only problem is that is not a NASA image, but was selected by NASA itself for their Astronomy Picture of the Day--Booth sift 22:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is not a NASA image, but an image from an amateur astrophotographer with an account on Commons (indeed, the same author as this, which I nominated a couple of weeks ago). As such, I think it's an excellent photo, and the best picture of the Elephant's Trunk Nebula on Commons. It doesn't quite reach NASA standards, but to do so would be impossible. It's still a superb and beautiful photograph, and close to the best that is realistically possible. The obvious advantages of NASA and others shouldn't preclude excellent amateur work in this genre becoming featured. Cmao20 (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it's good enough for NASA to select it as Astronomy Picture of the Day, it's good enough for me resolution-wise. Just looking at it as an image, it's gorgeous. --Cart (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all has been said. - Benh (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Rosa Parks being fingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey after being arrested for boycotting public transportation.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 10:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1950-1960
Info created by Associated Press - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly important photo, well-restored. Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, very important photo --Booth sift 04:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly.--Peulle (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historic picture. --Gnosis (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Highly relevant photo. MartinD (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1950-1960

File:Aleš Kravos Kurentovanje Ptuj 2019.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 18:07:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Aleš Kravos - uploaded by ModriDirkac - nominated by ModriDirkac -- ModriDirkac (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ModriDirkac (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question downsized? Charles (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Why? --ModriDirkac (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Disturbing, unsharp stick in the foreground --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stick in the foreground is photobombing the picture. --Cart (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Certainly an interesting cultural picture, but the stick is very distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If only the stick wasn't there--Booth sift 17:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edro III Shipwreck.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 19:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Shipwrecks
Info created by Nino_Verde - uploaded by Nino_Verde - nominated by Nino Verde -- Nino Verde (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors and scene but vignetting is seldom a good idea on FPCs. It is also a bit too gritty and unsharp; might be due to the f/11. A larger aperture and higher ISO could have been better since the ship is so far away (check out any one of Christian Ferrer's great ship photos, example). --Cart (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comment. I understand what i did wrong and check my raw photos to process and suggest for FP. --Nino Verde (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A dramatic sight, but the vignetting is a bit of a problem. I don't think the light conditions are quite as good as they could be too. I like the composition though. Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 17:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ladybird.tif, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 00:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Coccinellidae (Ladybugs)
Info created by and uploaded by RSC-KWC - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should this not be Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Coccinellidae_(Ladybugs)? --Axel ^(talk) 01:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly.

Done --D-Kuru (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very different from typical ladybug photo. --Axel ^(talk) 01:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture but unfortunately not sharp enough. The exposure time should have been shorter to freeze the movement of the beetle.--Ermell (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo had poor description and categories. As nominator, it is your responsibility to check that all of this is up to standard before making the nom. I have fixed that for you, but please remember this the next time. --Cart (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tif is also a rather cumbersome format. However, I would support this sharpened/edited jpeg version of the photo if you added it as an "Alternative" to your nomination. It is a really nice photo. --Cart (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought about if tif or jpeg is the better one. However, tif can be used for lossless quality, jpg not. Why should we prefer non-lossless over lossless quality? Wouldn't this just be an incetive to not-share the better version? --D-Kuru (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon that the jpeg version is promoted to FP since it is easier to handle and the tif is maintained as an original reference. (Here is one of the latest examples.) A good photo is not just about the quality of the photo, it is also about how accessible the photo is. Not all wiki users have the same high technology standard we here at FPC might have. There is a sharpened TIF version if you prefer that. --Cart (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing in focus. 1/125 sec not right settting. Charles (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the hiar on it's back. How it that not in focus? --D-Kuru (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the hair on the back is Ok. But we focus our attention on the body. And the composition/crop with the white area bottom left is not appealing. Charles (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still: It's an exceptional photo. No need to have another super-sharp shot of a sitting ladybug. Isn't FP also about diversity? --Axel ^(talk) 00:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ermell. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above, although I don't mind the TIF format; it should be noted that anyone wishing to view in JPEG can simply click the link on the file page below the image itself, and view a full-size JPEG preview. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately per others --Booth sift 04:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desenka meadow 2019 G2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 06:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Mist (visible atmospheric water) shortly before sunrise. Meadow at dawn near Desenka railway halt, Ukraine
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light when it's scattered like this, but given the lack of detail I'm not really convinced that this is one of the best images on Commons. The only really good thing about it is the light, but then "all sunsets are beautiful".--Peulle (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The weather and light conditions are good but not combined with interesting enough landscape and the foreground is rather dark. The composition is a bit random. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with the above, the light is nice and the quality is fine, but there are a lot of scenes like this on Commons and this one doesn't stand out to me. I think the composition could be a bit better, as it is it almost looks like the rightmost frame of a much more interesting wider panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry per Peulle --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Poor Man's Scream (41869387122).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 18:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info all by me -- Benh (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Funny that that the Flickr bot caught this on my Flickr page. Please "roast me" :) -- Benh (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info And this is the place I tried to depict FYI. - Benh (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any reason why we can't feature great user-made artwork, and this fits the bill. Cmao20 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contemporary art is not something we see every day.--Peulle (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it's funny, there are so many derivate of The Scream and I'm not convinced this is the best. Some more original work from your brush would be interesting to see here though. --Cart (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have various versions of this scream created by the reknown artist (1, 2, 3, 4, 5...). I really don't see why a user's copy would be preferred. To be honest, I think this nomination is a decent painting, but really far from being a notable piece of art -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Basile Charles (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Steindy (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the reviews. I've to say I expected this outcome. So sorry for the reviewers. Hope you laughed a little at least. I was also wondering what kind of reception this gets. Like, does any personal art stand a chance not only here, but on Commons generally speaking? This was a pet project on an arts class I had every week at work. So I had like 1h each week to advance on it, and I didn't want to take the full year to complete it to try other things. So Cart I don't think u'll see much more from me... except that self portrait you might have noticed on Flickr already. - Benh (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: Had a glance at your self portrait, which is in my opinion much better and more personal (although no clue at all if similar or not). By curiosity, why should have we "laughed" with this one? I suppose because of the file name, but this name can be interpreted two ways : 1) Poor man = guy painted, or 2) = guy painter. Right? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you laughed because I intended it from the start :) this was my first try with oil painting. I knew I wouldn’t come out with Orsay museum exposable material. So I tried something funny instead. The originals are really scary and convey very uncomfortable feeling. Probably not the case here. And poor man’s because it’s obviously a low grade version of the Scream. I don’t know what you mean by "similar" but yes the self portrait had different meaning and is quite faithful to reality. That really ressembles me :) - Benh (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I didn't laugh at this one. Yesterday I laughed for something else totally different. "Similar", I mean "ressemblant" in French. Good if your self-portrait is -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Benh (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maison Carree in Nimes (15).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 07:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. The road and the two ordinary buildings are not very appealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like this, but I'd prefer to see a wider crop on the left-hand side, the road cuts off rather abruptly and I'm not sure it works. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I like the colors and the way the buildings and street fit together. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support What Cmao said--Booth sift 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bunratty Castle and Durty Nellys, Southeast view 20150803 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 14:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
Info Bunratty Castle in County Clare, Ireland (along with a nearby pub that claims to be one of the oldest in Ireland). This castle was built in the fifteenth century by the powerful MacNamara clan; in the twentieth century it was heavily restored and opened to the public. I think this is a beautiful depiction of the castle as well as an elegant evocation of rural Irish life. Created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a new experience for me to be two days into the nom and have no reviews at all . I still think this is a great pic, but it seems like others are not enthused; however, I'd love to hear some opinions one way or the other. Cmao20 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That was on my toreview... but I'm struggling to find time this week :) In short, nothing wrong (it's a DXR, we get the insurance it's flawless technically), but neither the castle or the pub are shown in proper glory in my view. The castle is overcast by the pub, which is cover by the bridge. - Benh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while there is nothing, in my opinion, fundamentally wrong with this photo, the composition is underwhelming. The castle is partially obscured by a rather boring bar; murky water in the foreground is not terribly appealing either. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I liked that it was a view of all three and there's plenty to look at in the composition but I get both your arguments. Cmao20 (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks to everyone who voted. It seems unlikely this picture will get enough support to pass, which is a shame as the technical quality is flawless, but I guess it could be construed to be a bit low on wow factor. Sorry DXR, I'll try one of your excellent church photos instead next week. Cmao20 (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20, I always appreciate if somebody likes any of my images enough to nominate them - perhaps more than the star itself. In this case, I do probably agree with Benh et al that this picture was probably more a good QI than a FP, but many thanks anyhow! --DXR (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunny green paddy fields with trees and long shadows at golden hour.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 04:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar picture (+ two more) already promoted. --A.Savin 08:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Five more) Thanks for the link -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support For me the picture is sufficiently different from the linked one. Golden hour, shadows, dark clouds. It captures the atmosphere beautifully and the composition is good. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different enough from your others to me. This is a very beautiful subject and deserves mutliple FPs to capture different compositions and light conditions. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice--Booth sift 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Dinkum (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but per A.Savin Poc o² 20:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Almejas chiludas - Panopea Generosa.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 06:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is not ideal, one of the clams is cut on the top for example, the crop is too tight --Booth sift 06:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift. --Peulle (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BOothsift. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willow in the Red Zone, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 07:31:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's a Weeping Golden Willow in the Red Zone by River Avon, Christchurch, New Zealand. The picture was taken right before the sunset, about a minute later the sun was below the horizon - hence the red colour. It's just working for me - I like it so I nominated it :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice angle, at first I thought the photo needed rotation but seeing the species of the tree, I got it (I think...). :-) Did you camp under the tree? --Cart (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVery nice, but please rotate 90 degrees CCW. --XRay ^talk 15:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. If rotated, I think it will just look like any other tree distorted by some special lens or "fixed" in post-processing. Having it this way makes you think twice about the angle IMO. --Cart (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support This one really made me go 'wow' as soon as I saw it. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but how about a CCW 90° rotation? I would feel like I'm facing the tree and then look up. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning, but do not rotate to normal view. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Why should I have to keep my head to the side to see the picture correctly? It could easily be rotated 90 °. For me it is no FI. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you lie on your back under a tree and look up at the branches and the sky, there is no other direction than up. A weeping willow will spread its branches down around you, at least that is how I perceive this. Here is a similar view with other trees. --Cart (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support btw please keep the landscape orientation. something so reliant on mood and evocation needs the human eye's more horizontal perspective — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will. I understand that some folks migh find it ankward though. I was laying under the willow, thinking about life when I got the idea to take a shot of what I was actually looking at. I tried to rotate it but it just looks weird to me. It evocates a real tree from a classic angle - these are thick branches under about 45 degrees angle plus tiny branches that go all the way down. So this rotation makes sense to me. Thanks for the support. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome the way it is --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Feels like lying under the tree and looking up. :) --Peulle (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I was heading for. I like lying under the trees! --Podzemnik (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Creative -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different Poc o² 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way this subverts the usual dreaminess one would expect from looking up at willows by doing it in winter, when its branches are bare. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bahia-13.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 01:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created and uploaded by Dlaurini - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 01:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 01:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, no detail at full screen. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Excessive noise reduction and well visible post processing (black brush strokes, lower left) among other issues. Arion, it doesn't look like you've progressed in your judgment at all after your block because of low-effort nominations exactly like this one ... – Lucas 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had to strike this oppose because the FPX-contested below counts an an oppose as well. – Lucas 11:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looks good as a thumbnail, but at full size the overprocessing is evident.--Peulle (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another waste of our time by Arion. Much cloning of the sky as well as other points. Charles (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a thumb, this looks stunning, but per Peulle and Lucas there is too much NR at full-size; the image is very lacking in detail, and the lighthouse itself is noisy and blurry. Tough shot, of course, but not up to scratch, I feel. Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, low quality per oppose votes, I've reported Arion again at ANU – Lucas 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasbosch: While you were gone like Arion, we have tightened our rules for FPX so that it no longer applies to images that have a lot of opposes and no support as it is not against the guidelines. --Booth sift 23:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't even like it as a thumb: The top of the light house looks very distorted. --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw this image; with this many opposes you're just, as Charles said, wasting our time. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista do Convento da Penha do Morro do Moreno.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 01:11:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Aandradevix - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 01:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 01:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Overal very low quality for a landscape image, noticeable halos from oversharpening and visible CAs. Arion, it doesn't look like you've progressed in your judgment at all after your block because of low-effort nominations exactly like this one ... – Lucas 05:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had to strike this oppose because the FPX-contested below counts an an oppose as well. – Lucas 11:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Downsized, which is a no-go for me. Also there are chromatic aberrations that require cleaning.--Peulle (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not that bad, I think some of this is a bit harsh, but yes it seems downsized, there are visible CAs, and also blurriness and slight vignetting in the corners. Cmao20 (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, low quality per oppose votes, I've reported Arion again at ANU – Lucas 17:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasbosch: While you were gone like Arion, we have tightened our rules for FPX so that it no longer applies to images that have a lot of opposes and no support as it is not against the guidelines. --Booth sift 23:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal Even if it were technically sound, I would still not consider it an FA as it's just a very static composition that does not wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maroilles Le Moulin de l'Abbaye en2019 (6).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2019 at 09:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info created by Pierre André Leclercq - uploaded by Pierre André Leclercq] - nominated by Pierre André Leclercq -- Pierre André ^(talk) 09:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André ^(talk) 09:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scenic image, quality is fine when downsized a little Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'd like to see something more special for FP star. It's a nice view but the light is rather harsh and the shadow on the right side is quite distracting, my eyes keep looking at it. It could have work for me with different light conditions. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your comments, I'm downloading a new version, best regards.--Pierre André ^(talk) 09:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre André Leclercq No worries. You can also wait and see what other users will say. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neither version is sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support -- Pierre André ^(talk) 09:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to support whichever version gets most acclaim. Cmao20 (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pier 66 and Hudson Yards (01473)p.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 21:05:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
Info Walked up the west side of Manhattan, New York City last month and like this as an example of what that area generally looks like. Lots of landmark buildings here (see map labels/notes). created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wow! This feels much more lively and "3D" than such city panos usually do (...and I sorted all the FP panos a while back...) I also like that the people in the photo really adds to it for once. --Cart (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A not yet commonly photographed part of Manhattan. Great job! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the others--Booth sift 04:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The stitching error on the "frying pan" should be easy to fix.--Ermell (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see it. Thanks. Will fix when I finish work tonight. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermell: Done — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Haven't seen this view before. :) --Peulle (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support An excellent look at a very 21st-century part of Manhattan, a take on how the city's skyline is evolving. Also, I like how the boats in the foreground, even if just personal craft, are a reminder of the city's history, its beginnings as (like so many other of today's great global cities) a port, even if it does very little of that today (How many decades ago would this whole area have been, or been seen as, a seedy low-rent district of warehouses and flophouses?)
You could add some more notes, if possible ... the high-rises in Cliffside Park at far left, and whatever those buildings are above the Javits Center (a/k/a these days: "Where the Auto Show is held"—does anybody ever go there for any other event?) Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please do go ahead and add labels if you spot something that could use them. As for Javits, I give you BookExpo, Comic Con, and (last year anyway) PetCon. I had also planned to attend Anime NYC to take pictures, but when I got there (a) I had just been to Comic Con, which is much better for that sort of thing, and (b) I saw PetCon was on the other end of the building, and, well, c'mon. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are officially a "poodle photographer". :-D Thanks for the link to PetCon, you made my day! --Cart (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am that. A small poodle in particular is typically one of the first subjects when I get a new lens/camera, even. Don't know if I've ever uploaded an image of that one, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Con is rather a newcomer, and the other events ... well, like I said, most Greater New York residents I know of go there for the Auto Show and nothing else. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Victoria Memorial Kolkata at night.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 19:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#India
Info created by DeepanjanGhosh - uploaded by DeepanjanGhosh - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive image and very good quality -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image. Cmao20 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sumit Surai (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ardpur.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 07:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created & uploaded by Kookaburra 81 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question what does the title mean? Charles (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an abbreviation of Ardea purpurea. It's not entirely out of the ballpark, but it should probably be changed to something more meaningful - especially if the nomination succeeds.--Peulle (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture. Cmao20 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a nice shot, but please change name after nomination Kookaburra 81. It would be better to rename before nomination Tomer T. Charles (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Charles. I'd suggest to pick a file name with the name of the species + geographical location. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting action, good light -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs to be renamed once the feature is given. --Cayambe (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor small fish, but nice image... -- Karelj (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot, and looking in their eyes... I can see this purple heron is so proud of what he (she?) catched! And I'm agree with others, please change the name after nomination. Ahmad^talk 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Broken Beach.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 09:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Indonesia
Info created by Aaron Rentfrew - uploaded by Aaron Rentfrew - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question saturation? Charles (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oversaturated, quite unsharp at the borders --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1 - beautiful, but not sharp in places, and I'm not convinced the saturation is accurate to reality. Cmao20 (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Cart (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but a little oversaturated and very unsharp and distorted at the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Javan Green Peafowl in Baluran National Park.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 09:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Pheasants, Quail, Turkeys)
Info created by Panji Gusti Akbar - uploaded by Panji Gusti Akbar - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, image quality falls short of FP standards --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. The processing is not what we expect for FPs.--Peulle (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretfully per above. A beautiful image of nature at its finest, but blocky and lacking in detail at full-size. I tried downsizing it, but it's still visibly of poor quality at 3000px across. Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only per technical shortcomings, but it's also somewhat busy compositionally. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hazarduari Palace, Murshidabad illuminated at night.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 18:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#India
Info created by DeepanjanGhosh - uploaded by DeepanjanGhosh - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This definitely shows the architecture well, but I find it all a bit dark, with the strip of complete blackness at the bottom. I don't find the light particularly aesthetic or interesting. Add to that the fact that the edge-sharpness is not as good as the sharpness in the centre, and I don't think I can support this one. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even without the sharpness issues, and even if it were cropped to more of a panorama, it still really doesn't stand out from other pictures of illuminated neoclassical buildings at night. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Gamle Bybro, Trondheim 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 13:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Norway
Info all by Satdeep Gill. A view of warehouses along Nidelva river, Trondheim. -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there was a good compositional idea underlying this image, in terms of the different colours of the warehouses, the contrasting bright reds, greens and yellows. But I don't think it's quite worked. This is in part because you weren't very lucky with the light; the day is too grey and dull to show the buildings at their best, but not grey and stormy enough to have an atmospheric mood. I also think that the angled composition means we don't see the coloured buildings as clearly as we could have done; perhaps it would have been better to stand on the opposite bank and capture them face-on reflected in the water. Finally, the distracting bottom-right corner should probably be fixed. This is not a bad image, the quality and resolution are superb as one would expect from the Sony α7, but for these reasons I think it falls some way short of FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is not so good, there is too much water + sky (check the lower right corner!), the left side is blurred. --A.Savin 17:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --Cart (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao and A.Savin. With the right light, and a lot of the water and sky cropped out to make it more panoramic, this can work. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Satdeep Gill I agree with you, this scene has FP potential. I felt the same 2 weeks ago when I visited this place. If I upload those pictures or somewhere else, I will show you a variant to shoot it. Poc o² 10:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Émile Bayard - Beaumarchais - Bégéarss in La mère coupable, 1876.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2019 at 13:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Émile Bayard - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine illustration. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:A stream on a track between Sabine Hut and Speargrass Hut, Nelson Lakes National Park, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2019 at 09:56:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's a small stream that runs over a hiking track in shady native beech forest. The orange thing on the tree in the back is a trail mark, a symbol of tramping in New Zealand. The trail basically runs over the stream, you have to hop over the boulders. I quite enjoy the shady and moist atmosphere. Quite a few native species can be seen including ferns, beech, horoeka and a lot of moss. -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A subtly beautiful place. Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Water & Stones are very nice, but yellow triangle & brownish fern & scattered branches in the background are a turn off for me --Axel ^(talk) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of brownish stuff because it's in the middle of the winter. Also, it's a native bush which makes the view a bit raw. I was thinking about removing the orange triangle but I quite like it - it's so typical for NZ bush that I just keep it on my pictures - but I understand that it might look distracting for others. Podzemnik (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC) double vote --Steindy (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It doesn't look like wintertime, though ... is this some sort of evergreen forest? Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case The rule of thumb is that what is not evergreen, is not native to NZ. This is a native forest, it's never been cut down before. In the winter, everything is wet and muddy and kind of dark green, in the summer it's a bit more green and many shrubs are flowering (but some shrubs and trees are flowering in the winter too...). But it's green all year around. When I first came here, I was quite amazed by hiking in the snowy bush where everything was green but covered in snow. Quite unusual sight for a European. You should come to check it out. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC) PS: The picture was taken at about 800m above the sea level. This one is just a couple of days before from 1600m. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dinkum (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit cluttered and lacks of wow factor, the technical execution was on the other hand precise Poc o² 20:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. - Benh (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lady Chapel, looking East, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 11:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom‎
Info The Lady chapel in the church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling. Much of what you see is about 500 years old, and has been reconfigured long ago from its original locations in the church. This view shows off the detailed wood carving. Use the zoom viewer if the file is too big to download/view on your PC. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, this is extraordinary. Beautiful church with plenty of intricate details in the wood carvings. Not quite Diliff sharpness at full-res (although still pretty good), but that's quite to be expected since you've provided the image at extremely high resolution; when downsized to 9000px across, it's still 54 megapixels and easily the equal of most of Diliff's work. You should nominate here more often; this catches my eye on your image pages, although of course it's not as high resolution, but I think it would stand a strong chance. Cmao20 (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Diliff's are the standard to aim at. His church interiors are typically downsized about 50% and range from 30-70MP. -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very high quality. Charles (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see these high quality shots of a small church rather than just the grand cathedrals. --Cart (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice rood screen (?) Almost too big. Some weird artifacts on the aeras of very high contrast, and at least one stitching error. But I don't give a shit actually ;) - Benh (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, I believe there used to be a rood screen, which was removed and the sides of this lady chapel were made from it. Other parts of the screen were placed at the back of the church (here and here). -- Colin (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Cart. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steindy (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the detail when you can not only see the pair of glasses someone (the vicar maybe?) left behind at the altar, you can see them clearly. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel the glasses are mine :-). I can't see the camera controls when I have them on. -- Colin (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the phrase "Now where did I put my blessed glasses..." has a new meaning for you now. :-) Be thankful it's only your glasses that turns up in photos, I'm an expert in parking my car in positions where it becomes an unwanted addition to the composition. --Cart (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have my bag and glasses in this photo. At least I had the place to myself for most of the time, so no tourists to clone out. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My car (at that time) is front and center here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sintra Palácio Nacional BW 2018-10-04 11-39-16.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 13:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Portugal
Info created by Berthold Werner - uploaded by Berthold Werner - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's a beautiful QI and would be a great illustration for a Wikipedia article, but I think for an FP of this palace you might need to find a better angle to shoot it from. This one has the palace overly obscured by foliage, and the blurry silhouetted plants poking up into the frame are a bit annoying. It might have been better to find a way to shoot the palace from higher up rather than from street level. Cmao20 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nave, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 18:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Nave, looking west
Nave, looking east

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom‎
Info Here are the two important views of the nave, church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling. The view looking west is taken from the altar, with the mediaeval font in the distance. Nearby are some misericord stalls. The hammerbeam ceiling dates from c.1450 and rises to 45' (13.7m). The spandrels are filled with ornate carvings. The view looking east is taken from in front of the mediaeval font and shows off all the significant features of the church. The two aisles are not symmetrical: the south is 20' (6m) wide and the north 12' (3.6m) wide. I like how there is a contrast between the mediaeval woodwork and the modern active noticeboards. The little red creature in the top left of the east window is not the devil, but a red squirrel (see this photo for more detail of that window). At 103 and 169MP, each are about 2x the resolution of most Diliff cathedral interiors. As with any wide-angle rectilinear projection, the resolution is better in the centre than the edges, and please note if printed at fine-art 300dpi both would be 1m tall. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes.--Peulle (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photos like these inspire me not to even try to capture church interiors :) --Podzemnik (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, the first image is very good, but the second image is simply too wide by a couple of mm. Compositionally, I understand why you would choose this crop, but the undistorted area in the centre is rather small. To me a crop for the left window (so cutting the right window) and just below the heaters (?) at the top would work better (I made a note) - might still be worth uploading this crop just as a second option for wiki projects. --DXR (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per DXR the first image is the stronger, but I wouldn't crop the second. I like when a small church with an obviously active local community and kiddie art gets the "Diliff-esque" treatment. --Cart (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steindy (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I'm per DXR. At least maybe you should have move ahead or back to have a better side arches positioning. And I'd have framed more of the bottom as well. - Benh (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Benh, it is always difficult to decide where or whether to crop. I can't go any further back as I'm right in front of a stone font. I would have shot another row along the bottom, but someone came in to close up the church and so I finished up. -- Colin (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris - IGNF PVA 1-0 1985-07-17 C2314-0022 1985 FR3736 0065.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 00:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by Institut géographique national - uploaded by Pyb - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nino Verde (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are you nominating an unprocessed image? Is the border etc. significant? Charles (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I just don't understand -- is there some significance to this particular aerial shot? It's from 1985, but there's little other information here. Also wouldn't expect a FP to have archival notes in the margins. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. -- Karelj (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent representation of the class of aerial imagery - and by that I mean that the border etc. are integral to why this should be an FP. Of course it can be cropped, but then it is no different to thousands of other aerial images. If someone wanted an FP to represent an aerial image the framing sets that scene and communicates that perfectly. The slightly washed out emulsion of the 80's film stock is also important - again, of course someone could take a shot with a cutting-edge HDR DSLR, but it wouldn't be this, and post-processing it to look like this is fake. This is a very nice image, and a great representation of what an FP should be - not beauty shots, but important representative shots. Very nice. SFC9394 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fishing boat Frifararen at Vikavet Museum 2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 16:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Sailboats
Info One of the oldest preserved fishing boats in Bohuslän in a setting very typical for this county (strong wind, sea and granite). All by me, -- Cart (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The main objects are shadowed, unfortunately --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Michielverbeek and Fischer.H, I liked a bit of drama of near silhouettes against the gale, but maybe I was too bold since I got those comments immediately. I've recovered a bit of the light on the boat and stone, not sure it's enough though. The boat is facing north, so you can't get full front sunlight on it --Cart (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like a still image from a Scandi noir show. Cmao20 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...I knew I should have checked the boat for bodies... --Cart (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I don't understand the aversion to shadows that seems to be widespread around here. Of course, there are instances when shadows are too dark and obscure too much, but in this case the shadow adds something, rather than distracts. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just realized the current version was brightened. The original was indeed too dark. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really bad light, dull sky, clear no wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After shadow reducement I realize the photo has got no wow (per Basile), sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steindy (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't blame the boat for staying on land with such rough seas behind it ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... --Cart (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Basile Poc o² 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little wow and I don't like standing position of the boat. --Ivar (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It was worth a try, thanks for all your reviews. :) --Cart (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sass de Putia y Odles de Eores dala Mont de Antermeia.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 07:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created & uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unpleasant midday light --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for me, light may not be the best but it's very detailed, good composition and fun to view at full-res. Cmao20 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. Given the number of alp photos we have, I think we can be picky about the light when the compo is good but rather ordinary. --Cart (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great scene, but harsh light. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Midday light is underestimated. Fine for me and authentic. --Milseburg (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agressive light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venice awakes (20618763815).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 21:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
Info all by me -- Benh (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info it was actually uploaded by B2Belgium. Sorry for the wrong credits. - Benh (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral OK my turn to take the reviews. Please be honest. This is my take at low key photography. I also like the gondolas lines going toward the sun. -- Benh (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's got a lot going for it, but the foreground being out of focus is a shame. Charles (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Charles. Just, are we talking about the gondolas? Because the exposure was long enough for motion blur to show (I believe it's even an exposure blending). But yes not the sharpest work for sure generally speaking. - Benh (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand, so Support Charles (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The foreground is out of focus, but it's an atmospheric and beautiful picture. Cmao20 (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Boats in water are notoriously uncooperative when it comes to longer exposure, these are good enough as they add to the ambience. --Cart (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would love to see a wider crop --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but i would tweak the sharpening, which causes quite a strong white-line halo round high-contrast edges. Perhaps the radius is too large? -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a bit busy today. I remember thinking about fixing that some time ago. Not sure if it isn't due to exposure blending. Not even sure I did exposure blending really... that was 4 years ago. But will go back at that, hopefully this week. And thanks (to everyone) for the review(s). - Benh (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great light - well managed. --C messier (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO much of the pictorial appeal of this image comes from various perspective lines curving in towards the sun or, with horizon lines of a wider diameter, appearing to hold the sun in the sky. I like the image but would consider a slightly tighter crop (shown on image) to enhance this effect. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same, have been busy. I saw the annotation you did, and it might improve the effect of the lines drawing your eyes to the sun. But on the other hand, Uoaei asks for wider crop... so ?? Maybe it's subjective issue here... - Benh (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steindy (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed @Colin: Really still unsure why the fringe, but it was indeed an exposures blend. I fixed with cloning. It broke my Lr dev settings, so I tried to emulate the previous version. Hope I got it right. - Benh (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit heavy on the sharpening and I wish that one gondola at left had stayed still but ...very painterly all the same. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AIDAperla in Rotterdam - September 2019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 06:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Netherlands
Info The cruise ship AIDAperla at Wilhelminapier in Rotterdam with the high-rises De Rotterdam and World Port Center. I really like the lighting, i.e. the interplay of light and shade that creates a modest chiaroscuro. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A boat and some monolithic structure against some clouds, now where did I see that before? :-) Great capture with the ship connecting the buildings, could stand to lose a few pixels of water though IMO. --Cart (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --A.Savin 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great idea. Cmao20 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic weather. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steindy (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the ship seems to be trying to blend into the skyline. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case --Llez (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crepuscular rays over parc de Noisiel at sunrise, 26 May 2019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 06:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
Info created by Benh - uploaded by B2Belgium - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic light. --Cart (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light, composition. -- Colin (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin and Cart, this is excellent work. Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see every day horizontal rays over a well composed natural landscape and all that seeing from above. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steindy (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's like buttah. Looks like something you'd see in an airline ad. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is the miracle of light. Ahmad^talk 12:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Wonderful light, but IMO sharpness could be better. Why only f/3.2? Why 1/2.000 s? --XRay ^talk 12:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: Thank you for the review. Yes sharpness could be much better. The camera on the Mavic 2 pro is everything but stellar. It's pretty good, but nothing compared to the 1" Sony RX100 series for example (lens-wise and sensor-wise). To be honest, I didn't really plan this shot. It was more or less a test flight and that beautiful light was unexpected. But f/3.2 is pretty good for a lens this big. I would say we're not far from the sweet spot here. Stop it down and diffraction start to affect the image (because it's not the relative aperture, but the absolute aperture which affects the quality). 1/2000 is probably because I did the metering on the sun. Again, test flight... The pic came out very dark, so I had to push the EV up (hence the noise). - Benh (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Looking upward at the Yick Cheong Building, 13 June 2019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 07:10:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Benh - uploaded ~~and nominated~~ by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC). Re- nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC) after FPD.[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really want to support this, but unfortunately rules are rules. You have to withdraw one of the older nominations before this can be opened again. --Cart (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~FPD --Cart (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Renominated. Let it be my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, works fine. Striked FPD comment and old nominator. Tweaked 'Renominated' to 'Re- nominated' for the sake of FPCBot which might not recognize the combined wording. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've liked it since I first saw it on Flickr. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The thumbnail looks so strange (like a manga drawing), it's really surprising to see the reality at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing, but I am happy not to live there --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benh, the sky is too empty. You need to photoshop an aeroplane or Godzilla or DeathStar. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember about that one... I know you are kidding but still thought about feasability of such a shot. First, I don't think above that building is a flight corridor (quickly checked flight radar), and second, wouldn't work with a long exposure ;) But there are many possible spots in HK which might be under a corridor... I only did the tourist spots :) - Benh (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support clever Charles (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ugly buildings, but this is by all means an FP. --A.Savin 14:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of the Kowloon Walled City, although not quite as dark and depressing. Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: colourful dystopia. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pile-on, multistory support. --C messier (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support love this. my favorite thing I've seen at FPC in a while. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clean and, of course, dystopian. Ahmad^talk 14:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a great book cover, preferably for a textbook or scholarly tome on urban planning/urbanism. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Military orchestra in front of the Stockholm Palace 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 11:31:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Kritzolina - uploaded by Kritzolina - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, excellent crop. --Cart (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fresh idea and well executed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: disembodied hands holding a clarinet, which is cut off from both sides is a very questionable choice of composition. Most of the image is not in focus, except for small parts of the gloves and the coat. Purple fringing on the edges of the cord crossing the left glove. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above and the yellow is odd - and not enough is in focus Charles (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intresting Bijay chaurasia (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles--Booth sift 04:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cuts off too much of the clarinet. There's probably a place for this kind of thing if it showed the bell of the clarinet, but, as it is, it's hard to see the use of it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Cosmonaut --Fischer.H (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion very good composition, good colors and good sharpness -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not striking enough. Also per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This composition doesn't quite work for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. -- Karelj (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crab spider (Misumena Vatia) with prey silver-spotted skipper (Hesperia comma).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 13:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Thomisidae (Crab Spiders)
Info More death in the afternoon. This spider hides on flowers waiting for its prey. We have quite a few nice FPs already, but no butterflies. Focus-stacked from 8 shots. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A remarkable, if miserable, photograph. Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It makes me feel uneasy. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Thomisidae (Crab Spiders)

File:Diskoskasteren (Discobolos) - KAS1549.stl, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 19:21:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Statens Museum for Kunst - uploaded by Fnielsen - nominated by Piotr Bart -- Piotr Bart (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I can support this, but at the moment there is a problem, or at least we are some users that experience a problem with the 3D viewer, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T231895. — Fnielsen (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tried several times and on two devices (diff OS). Couldn't get this to display properly. - Benh (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I too am having technical problems. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Cart (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monasterio Noravank, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 29.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 14:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Armenia
Info The Surb Astvatsatsin ('Holy Mother of God') Church at Noravank, a large thirteenth-century monastic complex located inside a gorge in Armenia, with sheer cliffs on both sides. This church is considered the centrepiece of the complex, its grandest and most dramatic building, and was the final project of the renowned Armenian sculptor Momik, whose tomb is located near the church. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, thank you, Cmao20! just uploaded a new version with a slight crop improvement Poc o² 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: needs perspective correction. And why is the sky so dark? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cosmonaut: better now? --Poc o² 22:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sky is, but the left side is still leaning about 2-3 degrees. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, The Cosmonaut: here you go Poc o² 14:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but bottom crop is too tight --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1 --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argiope aurantia - ventral veiw.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 04:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Order_:_Araneae_(Spiders)
Info: Ventral view of a female yellow garden spider building a web; all by me. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark Charles (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I'm inclined to agree with Charles. --Cart (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and detailed. Cmao20 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done: brightened Charles, Cart. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

still dark Charles (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: brightened more Charles --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Better, but the photo is not getting to me so just move to neutral. --Cart (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, the subject does not have a universal aesthetic appeal :-) --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not FP, needed a different background and better DoF. Charles (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The spider is great, but the background is too busy. --Cart (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just out of curiosity - why did you choose this rather obsolete license? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the license I started using 11 years ago, and I haven't thought much about changing it. Is there a disadvantage to still be using it now? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the CC system evolved over the years. Its latest versions are much clearer and more easily applicable in different jurisdictions, see here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 2.5 is still the latest CC version for Canada. I should look at the international one, I suppose. The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart (Typo in filename should be corrected in any event, also). Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given that the typo will be fixed later Poc o² 20:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Order_:_Araneae_(Spiders)

File:Pont du Gard (30).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 06:06:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the lines heading to the bridge. The fact that one of them cuts into the reflection is quite adventurous and makes it interesting. Though it's quite a pity that you downsize your images. Also, it feels like your photos are missing blacks and whites. Maybe increasing them + a bit more contrast would make your photos less flat. I still like the compo too much not support right away. Podzemnik (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Interesting composition, beautiful bridge, worth a photo.— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a02:a03f:3d7a:2100:c800:30d1:478c:e558 (talk) 15 September 2019‎ (UTC10:06)

Invalid vote. Sorry, unregistered IPs cannot vote here. If you are a registered user who forgot to log in, you might want to have an admin delete this edit to keep your IP hidden. --Cart (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Podzemnik; the use of leading lines is excellent, and this is a really good composition. Dramatic weather too, and nice reflection. But I do agree that your photos are sometimes a little flat and that a tiny bit more contrast would help. Still, this is a solid FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo has got a lot: reflection, dark clouds, special foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SH6188 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe you applied gradual darkening of the sky and it's a little too obvious. It also lacks a bit of saturation in my opinion, but I agree that it's a very nice composition with the very nice reflection. - Benh (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzkill oppose The trees at left look really weird. Almost like what you'd find on stage sets. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion light is to dull for an FP. Sky looks artificiel to me. --Milseburg (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reflections. --SH6188 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) with dragonflies.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 17:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)
Info This nomination does not have the technical quality in close up like most successful animal FPCs. BUT, all three bee-eaters are showing off their dragonfly lunch. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow - Benh (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, so you caught three of these birds, mounted them on a stick, gathered some dragonflies and carefully positioned one in each beak. I mean that is the only way this could be done. ;-) Seriously, as have been said on this forum: wow factor may occasionally take precedence over technical quality. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's fantastic, whatever technical limitations it might have. Cmao20 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit soft, perhaps, but seeing this just reminds me of the hummingbirds in Clown of the Jungle. :D --Peulle (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Wow is there, but nothing is really sharp. --Ivar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really hard to judge, the wow factor left not much room for improvement but the technical quality is indeed clearly below the FP threshold. Given that this is a wildlife shot eventually tips the scale for a supporting vote Poc o² 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks; I see this as ideal for a magazine or newspaper article - not for printing out A3 size. And I would trade a dozen of my FPs for this one! Charles (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too blurry and far below the level of this existing FP--Ermell (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is this level of technical quality typical of a modern lens at 500 mm? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. Look at any of my FPs. The technical quality is not good here as I say in the introduction. With a once-in-a-lifetime wildlife action shot, you don't have time to set everything up. I was in a car (not a bad hide) and had to twist and shoot hand-held using a 400mm lens fitted with 1.4 extender. I'll take it. Charles (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for describing the circumstances. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The wow outweighs the technical flaws. Just enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: per Daniel Case --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously the quality is poor but the subject itself is so unique that I can't vote otherwise. Congrats for such a shot Charles! --Podzemnik (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should have mentioned that this was the Gold Medal performance by the Hungarian National Team in the World Synchronized Perching Championships (Open Class). Charles (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Nice motive, but I don't understand the Pros for such blurring --Neptuul (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To explain Neptuul, the FP guidelines say: "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Each voter must make his own mind up as to whether the uniqueness of the shot and the composition outweigh the technical shortcomings. Charles (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per Daniel Case --GRDN711 (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak weak support That was a clear no-go at first sight due to the terrible quality (even after reading the introduction). Then I noticed it was over 2Mpx, and thus the downsized version to the last limit brings the sharpness to a just acceptable level. And since the wow is huge, I finally think why not. The framing is large but by chance the background is nice, like painting. Overall it can make a nice postcard -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too low quality to be FP. --Rbrechko (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Image updated after the end of the voting period, please consider all the reviews above in relation with the previous version. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)

File:Gran kudús (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 27.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 19:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
Info Fighting of Greater kudus (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 19:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic moment, the kind of shot you can't plan on getting. A little bit noisy but all within acceptable limits. Cmao20 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20.--Peulle (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Action is good, but neither composition nor resolution doesn't impress me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are juvenile males, so I imagine it was a sort of practice fight. Charles (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chaotic composition, the color of image object (deers) is very similar to the color of background. -- Karelj (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Persicaria maculosa.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 18:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Caryophyllales
Info: blooming lady's thumb (Persicaria maculosa); all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful although I think it could do with a bit more sharpening. Cmao20 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Order : Caryophyllales

File:Cosmos bipinnatus Germany.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 02:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info created by and uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pretty flower but not an exceptional photo. Relatively small size. Harsh sunlight is rarely suitable for strongly coloured flowers, with red channel typically blown. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Colin has said it all. Pretty, but not exceptional given other flower photos, and the point about the red channel seems to be correct. Cmao20 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin too. Though flowers usually don’t run away, it’s really not at all trivial to take a really good photo of them. --Kreuz schnabel 23:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination My apologies to Fischer--Booth sift 04:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavo cristatus - Maroparque 03.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 07:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Pheasants, Quail, Turkeys)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I think it's the first image of a peacock here where that special gleam in it's feather really comes through. And that strong compo... --Cart (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadow is indeed and issue but the compo and pose of the peacock is great Poc o² 08:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great closeup. Cmao20 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but this DoF doesn't work for me; only the front of the head is sharp, and that leaves a lot of background as well as the whole neck unsharp.--Peulle (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Also the flashlight does not good --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, sorry. --A.Savin 17:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't really like flashlights on animals, unless it's in the forest or in the middle of the night (but even then I'd hesitate to support). This is a great composition but perhaps could have been done during the day, outside, without the flash. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we should expect more DoF with the eyes in focus, so perhpas F8 not ideal here. A less powerful fill-in flash might work here. Charles (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2018 -- 1417-21.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 00:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created by and uploaded by XRay - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 00:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 00:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before I forget: Thank you to Boothsift and the reviewers! --XRay ^talk 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eastern great egret head with open beak.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 01:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family : Ardeidae (Herons)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Really difficult to get this amount of detail in white feathers. Charles (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, and per Charles. Cmao20 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family : Ardeidae (Herons)

File:Graureiher.jpg, delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 12:19:52

Info As there are quite a lot of herons in the FP gallery, the bar for such a listing is high. Over time, some images may be delisted as they are no longer considered among the very best, since new images of higher standards are added. I would like the Community to consider this image from 2007 for delisting, as it has what we in 2019 consider to be a fairly low resolution, in addition to having quite a lot of space around the main subject. Also, the bird itself is not entirely sharp, and there are chromatic aberrations present. (Original nomination). Created and uploaded by Chmehl.
Delist -- Peulle (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist poor lighting. Charles (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Probably a strong image when it was featured, but per nom we have lots of images of herons, and this one lacks detail on the bird and is not very well-lit. Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Also the bird is looking away -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per others--Booth sift 23:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Cmao ... Shows how far Commons has come that there's no serious debate about delisting a former PotY. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Poc o² 09:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --C messier (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Cart (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edro III Shipwreck LE.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 09:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Shipwrecks
Info created by Nino Verde - uploaded by Nino Verde - nominated by Nino Verde Previous nomination of this ship was declined in case of vignetting, a bit blurry image and too small ship size in photo. I've corrected those issues with another photo and hope now it is good enough to be FP. Thanks. -- Nino Verde (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. But will you remove the dust spots please? Getting horizon straight would be great too. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Nino Verde, please see my comment and a note above. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'll remove dust spots today. Sorry, missed your comment. -- Nino Verde (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dust spots removed. Unfortunately correcting horizon will cause resolution change or total redo of photo. -- Nino Verde (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better than the last version. Cmao20 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's nice and I'll support it in advance, but please fix all the dust spots first. It's not only one spot, I found at least 4. --XRay ^talk 12:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just like I said it could be ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely color palette --El Grafo (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chandelier captured in Madhapur, Hyderabad (1).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 14:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
Info All by IM3847. Chandelier captured from the bottom -- IM3847 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IM3847 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me too. Half abstract half figurative -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite work for me. The black areas in the background especially are disturbing, with several areas being smudged with a reddish colour.--Peulle (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can not see what it is in this picture --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Well executed and a bit of a novelty, but the visual wow escapes me. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cart. Just too chaotic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I've sat on this one for a while but I agree with Cart and Daniel. The wow is not there for me, although the image is interesting to see. Cmao20 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart--Booth sift 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hong Kong Harbour Night 2019 (48127957278).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 18:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info uploaded by Paris_16 - the rest by me -- Benh (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have many FP of HK, my favorite being that one. It is taken from similar location as this one but improves on it (brighter, sharper, more dynamic range, larger framing and higher resolution). -- Benh (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see into people's living rooms. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know the view. Do you have to crop the buildings at the bottom? Charles (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. The hill's slopes, which can be seen on the sides, meet in the middle. The lines just go on straight outside the frame so they meet where you think they do (middle). Framing everything in would mean large dark areas in the picture and I personally don't like it. That's also a reason why I cropped out much of the sides. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks, Charles (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The slightly cold color temp does great service to any picture in HK but none more than this one. Elevates "neon jungle" to a whole new level. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this beats out Diliff's version and Poco's version owing to the better resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strongly, I might add. Ahmad^talk 09:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After KennyOMG's comment, I have realised the temperature is a bit too far on the cold side. I have attempted to fix. It's very subtle so I just uploaded on top, but you might want to alter your votes. - Benh (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually liked it a lot as it was but not going to change because of the warmer temp. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --SH6188 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Brings back fond memories for those of us who went to Wikimania 2013 ... and regret at what has happened since this picture was taken. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two birch trunks in front of a cliff in Gullmarsskogens nature reserve.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 10:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info This is the original 'Swedish noir' so I don't know how it may work on an international site. It was scenes like this that inspired artist John Bauer to make his works of trolls and gnomes, based on Swedish folklore. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Cart but I agree with Basile here. I can see what you were thinking, and it was definitely a sight worth capturing, but I don't see much more than a fairly interesting and good-quality QI. It just doesn't wow me, lame as that sounds. Cmao20 (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม วัดพระแก้ว กรุงเทพมหานคร - Wat Phra Kaew, Temple of Emerald Buddha, Bangkok, Thailand.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 22:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Thailand
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good architectural empty shot of an usually insanely crowded place - Benh (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Actually the camera was on the tripod, and several pictures were necessary to clone out a few visitors. Otherwise I could have waited centuries before this place gets empty. And I arrived early morning, before the opening! Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask how, but was curious yes. I actually use the same trick ;) - Benh (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Benh, but why only 12MP from your 30MP camera? -- Colin (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution: downsized about 60% with no justification. I am happy to overlook downsizing when the image is >20MP or if there is a good reason why the shot was technically challenging or we are stuck with whatever some external photographer uploaded to Flickr and the shot is outstanding. But not a 30>12MP downsize from a Commons regular. Happy to remove the oppose if full resolution uploaded. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, aren't you a bit extreme here? Although I more or less agree with you, this puts quite a pressure on a user IMO (and it's not like that user overwhelms us with his entire Lr catalog). Nothing obliges Basile to upload full size, and 12mpix of that quality seems very reasonable to me. At least, why not express your opinion through a neutral? Just my two cents. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, back in March, Basile was very adamant in opposing a cormorant photo downsized from 50 to 20MP. The Commons:Image guidelines for FP do ask photographers not to downsize. Most reviewers allow some downsizing for reasons I gave, but may oppose otherwise. The issue has been discussed many times, without being able to come up with a rule we can all agree on. Anyway, I only get one vote so others are quite capable of supporting this if they wish. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise Colin, the downsize was from 26,6 to 20 MP. From 50 to 26,6 was a crop as the bird was pretty far as my longest tele is "only" 600m (or rather 300m x 2). Cropping for such a reason is, I believe, acceptable for wildlife shots. Furthermore I was on a boat (in movement) in the Chobe river and not standing in front of a building. Poc o² 09:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info This monument is one of the most, if not the most important of Thailand. Type "main sites Thailand" or "main sites Bangkok" on Google, then you get results like this one or that one showing the Grand Palace in first positions. There was no decent picture on Wikipedia of this building before I upload the file. Check the Category:Wat Phra Kaew. The photograph was shot @11 mm focal length FF, so that I could get the whole buildings after perspective correction (and obviously slight size reduction, which is completely normal in architecture photography). This is not downsized. As said above, it's very difficult to find a good image of this temple on Google without tourist. Then I think the high educational value, with the relative rarity, and the correct light, should make it -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perspective correction often decreases resolution quite unavoidably, as in the case of this FP. Basile has never, as far as I know, been known for downsizing his images, and so we should take him at his word. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmao20 I appreciate that a strong vertical perspective correction in Lightroom will reduce resolution slightly. Some adjustment to the Y Offset often helps avoid having to reduce the scale too much to restore the height with the frame. I tried some fairly extreme "corrections" in lightroom and could not get anywhere close to 60% reduction. I suggest Basile experiments with the Y Offset and should then find that the perspective correction should have minimal impact on resolution. An 11mm lens on full frame is already an extreme ultra-wide, so if one is having to make strong corrections to that, then really we aren't seeing realistic proportions any longer. The state-of-the-art wrt architecture photos on Commons is a stitched photograph with resolution significantly in excess of what the camera produces -- we have loads of such high resolution images. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin, I mean, yes, such high-resolution stitched images (such as this by you) are truly wonderful, but they don't come around very often at FPC, the vast majority of images of buildings here are single frame. I didn't know we had, as you say, loads of these images, and if we do it'd be nice to see a lot more round at FPC! But for me I don't think we should apply such a high bar to architectural photographs, as a sharp 12.5 megapixel image like this one is really good enough for almost any purposes; it's easily big enough to illustrate the building for any obvious purpose I can think of. Basile's image is not perfect - there's a bit of distortion at the edges, probably because of the perspective correction - but looking at other images of the buildings on the internet, the proportions don't look totally out-of-joint to me, so it's still an accurate depiction of the building. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cmao20, for the comment and accurate research. Yes, this case is exactly the same than Podzemnik's before and after perspective correction + crop. This is not downsized -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Colin/PixelPeeping. Yes 12MP is ok for many purposes. It is just a very little short of what is needed for a Nat Geo spread at 300dpi and shorter still than needed for a Vogue spread. One of the ideas I explored in that essay was the difference between a "bold subject" and a "detailed subject". Some images are a bit of both. I want to see the detail of the tiles on this temple, but there isn't the resolution. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Colin. A lot did go right in taking this picture. But all the same, I agree with him that downsizing this cost a lot of detail on the roof and spires. Present, it might have more than made up for the light. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: what do you mean by "downsizing"? I remember I fixed for you the perspectives of your building File:Pratt_Street_skyline_from_Convention_Center,_Baltimore,_MD.jpg nominated in QIC because the operation was too difficult from your side. And now you're still confused with these architectural transformations, and seem ignore how they affect an image. I've said it already two times, but I'll explain one more for you. Also feel free to request my original files, they will make my words even more explicit. This picture is taken with the ultra widest angle rectilinear lens existing in the world. It means the distance is very short in front of these stairs in reality. There's a wall behind my tripod. With a standard focal length, you'd see only the temple and not the two towers. So, you really can't see much larger than this, the camera set upwards as it was. I did a small crop, but if I had used the top of the top professional Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (20.2 Mpx), be sure that the image would have appeared even smaller, without that crop. Why do you see less pixels? Because the image is not UPSIZED (I did not cheat), and because the original file has been transformed (perspectives corrected). It is sharp now, and it makes 4'156 x 3'014 px = 12,5 Mpx, more than 4K, and large enough compared to many other similar pictures in the same category. Now please try to give a link of a better image from the same angle, with a higher definition, if you find on the web. Good luck. Maybe possible in theory, but not in practice. Why is it not a stitched panorama? Due to the number of visitors in this place, technically it is almost impossible. Stitched panos are easy under favorable conditions, like fixed light and empty places. Visit that temple, and you'll understand. You want to see more details? Yeah me too, when I look at the Moon with normal eyes I expect to see the craters, the texture, and every single dust on the surface, this is my dream -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Extreme downsizing, and this in a picture from a user who pixelpeeks this issue in other noms with much moderate downsizing under tricky conditions (26,6 > 20 MP of wildlife shot from a moving boat). I seldom agree with Colin, but I definitely do here. Poc o² 09:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Extreme" downsizing, now. Wow! There's only one image uploaded, then I hardly see how it could be downsized from no previous version, lol. This is downsized, yes (check the history), and this too, and this one also. My opinion is you can crop as much as you want at home. Everybody do that. Because when you shoot camera upwards, you never see exactly what you'll get after perspective correction, then you necessarily need more space around as security. But the guidelines say "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality" (understood after upload of course). I just follow the guidelines. And disagree with you. No problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basile, you have no problem selecting wow-y subjects and you have shown that you are very good at using advanced post-processing techniques such as stacking and animating. Have you ever considered using panorama technique? It would have been ideal for a place like this where you can't get far from the subject and you would normally need some special lens to get it all in frame. Pano technique is not just for mountain tops, it works very well in confined spaces or when you are standing in front of a too large subject. The functions for doing it are in the editing programs you already have. In this photo, I had water behind me and could not back enough to get all of the subject in frame and with this large flat petroglyph, I would have needed a drone or crane to get high enough from the cliff. Panos sorted things out. This indoors photo is an extreme example of how much you can do by stitching photos together while being close to the subject. You write that you took several photos of this building to be able to clone out the tourists, while you were doing that, you could have made something like six photos of this scene from your tripod and merged them into one fantastic (and large) image. You should give it a try, I think it would add to your photos to have yet another "tool" to make great photos. This image is not bad, you just have not used the best available technique to capture it. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Cart that stitching can also be used to get rid of people (and to increase resolution). But also agree that this picture is maybe getting little unfair treatment. - Benh (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Benh. Sometimes I make stitched panoramas (using Photoshop or Hugin), but it's rare. The first reason is because they very often generate errors, boring to correct (recent example nominated here), by yourself or by others. The second reason is because they generate huge files, boring to manipulate (too long, too slow on a machine, even with enough RAM). The third reason is because these details are rarely useful in 90% of their applications. You really need to print a poster to look at all these, and in practice we almost never print posters. Here I remember I spent a very long time with my tripod waiting that some visitors move in various places. In my originals, I have for example a guy sitting on the stairs, waiting for his girlfriend takes a picture of him. Also a group of Chinese people discussing. Well, you can't tell these visitors "hey, guys, please go out! I'm waiting for you to leave now, my picture is more important please" :-) Thus, if I had to handle that work also for every small part used in a stitched panorama, the time it would have taken would have been impossibly excessive. Probably the light from the sun would have changed from a corner to another one, or maybe a guard would have come to me because one hour at the same place in the middle of a crowd is unacceptable behavior. The problem is that people here seem not to catch the challenge (except you Benh, and perhaps Cmao20 and The Cosmonaut). Of course if all the reviewers in FPC are only familiar with the empty churches and cathedrals, they might not understand what is a popular and ultra crowded site like this temple, gathering a lot of Chinese groups, and other visitors from all countries. Just read the Lonely planet: Wat Phra Kaew is "today Bangkok’s biggest tourist attraction and a pilgrimage destination for devout Buddhists and nationalists". In the light of the guidelines A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. I don't think it's so bad, and I'm sure it's difficult -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second Cart's suggestion. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping this is an image where we would love to see the detail on the temple. We don't need to print out a poster to see that, we can all use the zoom viewer or download full size and explore on our screens. The stitching errors you mention are because you need a panoramic tripod head to get the best results. But even before I had one of those, I could take indoor panoramas with hundreds of people moving about the frame: this and this and this and this were taken hand-held leaning on the handrail, with cheap lens and entry-level DSLR. People like to explore the detail in these photos and they go wow, which is FPC requirement. And the Albert Hall photo Cart links has such resolution and sharpness you can see tiny details in the distance and yet was taken with a £75 plastic 50mm lens. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So many pictures with people that are not cloned out. Different goal, different approach, different technique. When I started photography, that was not even with a DSLR but with a compact camera I didn't even pay (borrowed). Big joy. I also made FPs like this one with cheap lens and cheap body. Possible. Equipment is not all of course and you can possess a Ferrari without being a Formula 1 race champion. Or ride 75 km on a mountain bike instead of a race bike. Perhaps better for your muscles. But plastic lenses break easily and take water. I've also got the cheap EFS 10-18 and the sharpness is far far inferior, incredible comparison. But it also depends on what kind of pictures you make. If you don't care the people, then opt for more pixels. But if you like to see a desert site focusing on the building only, then my technique is better -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stitched photos are actually better for avoiding people, if that is what is desired. The overlaps naturally form a place where you have two photos to chose whether to include one person or another. And you can take as many stitched elements as you want and as much repetition as you want. And all the stitched elements above ground level don't have people in them anyway. You do realise all of Diliff's cathedrals and other similar photos are places with loads of tourists and yet he manages to eliminate them all. He ends up with a sharp 60MP wonder rather than a soft 12MP meh. Patience and good technique. The difference is that pretty much all of his nominations pass easily. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky most of mine pass easily without even being stitched -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Also Basile, I do a lot of perspective corrections myself and I'm not quite sure how this gets you from 30mp to 12. I do get the borders would be stretch to lots of extent, but the center should still retain its details. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the building and the towers are not at the same distance, then unless you focus stack, it seems normal to me to get a very slight difference of sharpness due to the depth of field -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Window on a barn in Färlev.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 06:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other windows
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Typical Cart ability to find beauty in unusual places. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me nothing special. --A.Savin 19:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this kind of shots work better when it's looking perpendicularly at the plan (hope my english is correct). Here the converging lines just distract me and draw my eyes to the left where there's nothing. - Benh (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the shadows and more 3D effect you get from a slight angle. Straight on looks too flat for me. Chacun à son goût. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd play with the lighting instead (make it more coming from the side). Also, very importantly, it's "Chacun ses goûts" :) (and yes my oppose is very subjective) - Benh (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell my old French teacher. :) --Cart (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: per Benh, though it has enough subtle wow as is for me to not oppose. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks kind of familiar to me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your photos have always been an inspiration for me. :-) --Cart (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: As yours are for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per A.Savin Poc o² 09:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The beauty of simplicity.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eldridge Street Synagogue (42773).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 16:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United States
Info inspired by Basile's post to the FPC talk page that we have very few FPs of religious buildings other than Christian, here's the interior of the Eldridge Street Synagogue in New York City. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, I like this a lot. Basile is probably right, I'll try to find a non-Christian building the next time I am tempted to nominate yet another church interior :) Cmao20 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing Something new! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totally agree we need more synagogue and mosque interiors. Perhaps I should get out into Sullivan County again and shoot the interiors of many of the NRHP-listed synagogues that I've already shot the outside of. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrett av Gina Krog (6276081582) - Restoration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 12:33:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Eivind Enger - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Spur-winged lapwing (Vanellus spinosus) in flight.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 21:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is not perfect, but good for such a challenging shot. Cmao20 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Not sharp enough for this too small resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination. The crucial part of this photo Basile is the spur you can see on the middle of the leading edge of the wing. Hence the bird's name. It cannot be seen when the bird is on the ground. Charles (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would be with Basile here. But the pose is really great. And I've tried many times to catch similar shot without much success. - Benh (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Türkenmohn Blüte 2019-05-20 11-07-39 (C)-PSD.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 21:27:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Papaveraceae
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oops, missed this when reviewing last night. Excellent quality and composition, of course, so pile-on support. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose visible stacking/cloning errors. --Ivar (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes they are, stacking errors very present. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can be sorted, but many stacking errors on the left hand side of the image (e.g. leaf standing up). Just needs a bit more time... Let me know when done Ermell. Charles (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steindy (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support; I would like to see the errors Ermell noted fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St.-Josefs-Kirche, Frankfurt-Höchst, Nave view 20190921 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 09:56:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info c/u/n DXR -- DXR (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DXR (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail. It is a bit grey, but I guess that's the building. -- Colin (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, I love your church interiors. And, per Colin's point, the majority of German Lutheran churches tend to be a little more grey and unadorned (although the ceiling here is quite lovely). It's nice to see a less extravagantly decorated church given a strong FP treatment. Cmao20 (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark. Depressing in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to make of this comment. It isn't a very bright place. Of course, it is possible to make it all bright and shiny, but imho, this would be a less faithful representation of reality. Against the white background, it look darkish, but in full screen, the lighting is appropriate. --DXR (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austere interior. Real light is missing. It lacks wow for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent but slightly too dark IMO. Why is the metadata incomplete? ~~It would also be interesting to know how the contrast range was handled. This is only possible with HDR technology.~~ Found the description.--Ermell (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, PTGui kills most metadata, shot with D850 and Sigma 50mm 1.4. --DXR (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a trick for when the program 'blanks' metadata. You take the finished photo and put it as a layer on one of the original photos, merge into one layer, and hey presto you have all the metadata from the one photo on your HDR. I do this when I make panoramas and Photoshop deletes my info. Of course, it's not perfect, but metadata from one of the photos included in the HDR or pano, is better than none at all. --Cart (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support but should be a bit brighter --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the fairly clear feedback, I have decided to slightly brighten and rework the tonemapping a bit. I hope this does not change any opinions too much, but am pinging the users who have already voted. Martin Falbisoner, Colin, The Cosmonaut, Cmao20, Basile Morin, Ermell, Uoaei1,Cart --DXR (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Φοινικόδασος Πρέβελης 4317.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 12:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A cretan date palm (endemic species of Crete) in Preveli palm forest, Crete, which lies inside a canyon Support -- C messier (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This works for me. Some might say the composition is a little busy, but I think it works, it looks like some sort of prehistoric jungle enclave miles from civilisation. Cmao20 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: agree with Cmao20 --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I doubt that this image is not outstanding in category Palm forest of Preveli --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. The light, subject and compo look like a rather ordinary vacation shot. --Cart (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cart, due to the orientation of the canyon, the palm forest at its bottom is sunlight only during midday (half hour later the palm you see was at the mountain shadow). That day it was a bit less harsh due to the clouds and I particularly liked how the light fell on the fallen leafs. --C messier (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can totally relate to the way things feel special when you are down in a canyon with the light filtering down for only a short while, but also how hard it is to capture that in a photo. My own photos from a ravine, that I felt were almost magical, were not well received here either. --Cart (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAOCOM 1A Mission (44262166295).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 19:10:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Space_exploration#Space_launch_vehicles
Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by BugWarp - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BugWarp (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there is so much land showing in the photo, it would be nice if the description also included where this was taken (launch pad, location, country, etc.). These launches are not common knowledge and people looking at the file page should not have to click back on WP links and categories to get such info. Please write a bit more. --Cart (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment added launch location to the description. --Msaynevirta (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment added Spanish description.--BugWarp (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive. However, I can not test the authenticity of "photography". It seems too much like composition to me. Sorry! --Steindy (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me it's a clear FP and I'm a fan of these shots on the spaceX Flickr page. But I'm missing more detailed and useful caption, which should be an added value of having the shot here. Which trail is take off, which one is landing? When are stages separation? Engine cut off? ... - Benh (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose wow is there, but resolution too low for me. --Ivar (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, too dark, too many unsharp areas -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the technical objections, it's just a very random composition. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift 22:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock Glen Falls.jpeg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2019 at 02:34:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: Rock Glen Falls, Ontario, Canada; all by me. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice waterfall but not really spectacular wrt subject or photography. The water is blown white due to harsh sun. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- KTC (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Sorry but, although it's definitely QI, it doesn't stand out from the multitude of waterfall pictures for me. I'd like to see a more interesting composition rather than just straight-on (although a straight-on view is better for illustrating the waterfall for Wikipedia). Cmao20 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crotalus atrox diamantklapperschlange kopf.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 10:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Viperidae (Vipers)
Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I hate snakes and that looks evil. Great pic Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 19:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Gbawden. Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really fascinating close up - Benh (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gbawden. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Viperidae (Vipers)

File:Foggy day Thung Salaeng Luang.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2019 at 07:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Thailand
Info created and uploaded by Jane3030 - nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truly epic morning. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While impressive and (to borrow a word from above) epic, the reds are badly blown. Also looks somewhat washed out (too much NR?) but that's just a personal preference. Will support if the red issue is fixed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @KennyOMG: According to histogram, nothing is blown. Clouds are reflecting light of the rising sun. --Ivar (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added notes. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A gorgeous landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Disregarding any technical issues, I agree that the there are a lot of wow-y elements in the photo. But that's just the problem, there are so many conflicting elements in the photo, it's hard to get a grip on it and it ends up looking messy for me. The top is one photo while the bottom is another, so to speak. --Cart (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mood was well captured. Good work. --Steindy (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree Cart and looks over processed.Seven Pandas (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The view is really great. --SH6188 (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose per Cart. Another great-idea image that just seems to be trying to take in too much. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Booth sift 22:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maldivian dish - Kandu Kulkulhu 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2019 at 06:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info all by -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely a Wow for me, I love the colours --Kritzolina (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, while I think that the subject surely has FP potential, I don't think that this image was executed to FP standards. 1) Arrangement: the two dishes at the left and center bottom look like they're being pushed out of the frame by their covers. That's even more severe for the red one with the peppers, as it extends outside the rectangle made up by the mat. The covers build a visual barrier between the dishes at the top and the ones at the bottom. I think I would have preferred to have all the dished in the center and the covers arranges around them. 2) Despite the colorful tableware, the whole picture over-all looks unexpectedly pale and grey. Maybe raise the exposure a bit and process for a little bit more "pop". I don't know what the background is made of, but I've git a feeling that is should be much brighter. There seem to be a bunch of shadows at the sides that make it rather ugly-looking. --El Grafo (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sharpness, as good as it gets without stacking.--Peulle (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle and the fact that I'd like to see lots more good food photography round here. El Grafo is right to critique the arrangement, but I think it's OK overall and the sharpness is very good. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too crowded. Charles (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a really good effort, and we do need more food photos, but the light is dark and dull and that shadow on the left side is bugging me as it makes the shot unbalanced. It's almost there, but not quite, sorry. --Cart (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, arrangement could be better, but it's really, truely sharp, and colors are really good. Besides, I think arrangement is fairly good (although it could be better). Ahmad^talk 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart Poc o² 09:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart --Booth sift 22:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arrangement could have been better. --Gnosis (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nesting Waterbird (73435059).jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 10:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Aubrey Holland - uploaded by Darwin - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting light but the picture is too small and there is a distracting ghost of a stem at the right in the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Good quality but I don't think the resolution or composition matches up to our best bird shots. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark area at lower left is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basilian monastery in Hoshiv, Ukraine 201706154.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2019 at 16:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Myroslav Vydrak - uploaded by Myroslav Vydrak - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super b/w photo. --Steindy (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely balance of light and shadow. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice shot, but leaning oppose at the moment because at full resolution it seems like a lot of detail has been lost in the shadows and highlights. I appreciate that this sort of contrast can make for a dramatic B&W photo, but I'm not quite sure it adds enough here to compensate as compared to a color version with more detail. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like it, but I agree with Rhododenrites, the detail in some of the shadows and highlights is not great. I'd like to see it in colour too. Cmao20 (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced by the composition or the lighting (big shadows on the church). Frankly, I also don't see why this picture should be b/w. --DXR (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per DXR Poc o² 09:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Black and white treatment, harsh light, too contrasted -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea of doing this in monochrome, but it's just too busy a composition (it might have worked better with a tighter crop on the building). That tree cropped in half is also hard to unsee.
And lastly, it is very unsharp out at the corners. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Groningen Universiteitsmuseum anatomy exhibition 8683.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2019 at 22:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The skeleton of an adult and a toddler exhibited at the anatomy room of Groningen Universiteitsmuseum. Support -- C messier (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess this is why the FPC guidelines says: "Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …". This is downright disturbing. However many child skeletons I might have seen at archeological digs or in museum collections, this "animated" scene gets to me even more. Good compo with the splash of color from the jars; they also put the whole scene in context. --Cart (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's the lighting, although I guess it was intended. Charles (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is an "abult"? I know the term "adult" for a full grown person, but I never heard of abults (and I found it in the dictionary neither). Could you please explain what "abult" means? --Llez (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Llez --C messier (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arashiyama Bamboo Grove Benh 2018-10-17.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2019 at 17:44:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Japan
Info uploaded by B2Belgium, the rest by me -- Benh (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In case you can't get enough of my back, and with a less terrible cloth on. For those who don't know, this is usually an insanely crowded place. I have a version without me, but this shows better the scale of the bamboo grove in my view. -- Benh (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, that grove is always impressive to see, but since it is parted by a path leading from A to B, it suggests movement and I think it would have been more appropriate to have someone walking instead of just standing there. Ermell had the right idea in this.--Cart (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm not good at doing the walking guy ;) - Benh (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the conditions are not the same. It was darker than you might think. So longer exposure. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate yourself, you do a good walk. ;-) And you could fake being on the move while standing still. --Cart (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could try to stand still. Exposures weren't that long. I shouldn't argument because this is when of personal pointd of view kick in. But since we've been on a chatting streak... ;) It didn't cross my mind to do the johnny walker (it did on the steps) because I simply was "amazed by the height of the bamboo forest" (yes the caption says it all). What you see, even though staged, actually reflects how I felt and I really was staring like this. I'll try your suggestion if I get the chance to go there again. Or you could if you go before me ;) - Benh (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only do moonlight shadows. That takes some standing still too. ;) --Cart (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Light is not good, too white --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michielverbeek: Could you expand on this please? If you talk about the blown out sky, that's the best one can do without it looking unnatural (I'm even thinking it's a bit too dark, but it's more how if feels when you are there). I actually could bring out the blue and orange colors but it would look very weird. - Benh (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm talking about the sky blown out and the bottom part is a bit dark. IMO it was just not possible to make a featured photo at that time of the day --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can do something about the bottom part (which is already brightened) but for the sky you are asking for the impossible in my opinion. You can check. And I like the effect of the bright area drawing sort of a palm tree when looking at the picture from distance. About having the sun higher in the sky, not sure if it would help much, but at automn, that would mean heaps of tourists in the frame. Not because on many case a bright area is wrong means it is wrong on all pictures (my two cents). Thank you for your input. - Benh (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment undecided yet. Great idea! When I was there, the place was packed with people. Any chance you can get rid of the chroma? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I really thought long about it and couldn’t find a way... I can try to do it manually. It is true that the chroma is quite prominent. Thanks. - Benh (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Light is too harsh. Very bad quality, sorry: noisy and important CAs. The trees are blue. Not the right moment of the day. Also the static pose lacks natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, I appreciate your inputs. It is noisy (not to boots... come on) because I took a shoot with less overexposed sky... I can't do exposure blending because the branches move, unlike temples. And downsize it to 12mpix, you'll see it's much cleaner. Have you also checked how many 24Mpix photo of that you have on the internet? You should treat pictures you review the same way you expect us to treat yours. - Benh (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take of this place. 0,8s, ISO 50, slightly higher resolution, no noise, no blurry leaves, and normal colors. It seems that yours was taken early morning, mine in the late afternoon. I think I'm fair in my judgment, Benh. Remember votes are subjective (you were alone to oppose this one of mine, for example). Here we are already 3 users to reject this one, and my vote is in the consensus. Probably we don't appreciate light the same way. Many of your pictures are amazing, but this one suffers from important technical problems, really. This is a moderate and very honest review -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Morin this is not the same conditions. You don't have high contrast because you don't show the upper part with the sky, and your leaves are as not tack sharp either. The light is also "harsher" on yours (less diffuse). Harsh light and blown out area are not the same. "noise", "blurriness", "harsh or not light", these aren't subjective issue. I just want to correct wrong facts. You may not light the light, but it's not harsh. I totally agree that it's too blue and has noise. I challenge people to find a similar shot without the very clear sky. - Benh (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not only I upload a 24,6 MPx image that was supposed to be inexistant on the web, but also especially for you the same subject under better conditions. Frankly, how could I review more equitably? No, my bamboos are not blue. But cut your sky maybe for a more explicit correlation. What is "wrong facts", seriously? We all occasionally meet these kind of special situations where the contrasts are a bit severe. Well, solutions exist to avoid blown areas and colored surfaces. If the exposure had been correctly set on your camera, you would certainly have got decent contrasts and accurate tints & shades. Also, why shooting @200 ISO with a tripod? The perspectives in yours are not vertical, that gives the false impression the plants are naturally curved that way. Sorry this nomination does absolutely not inspire me. There's a similar image in the Lonely Planet book of Japan, much more attractive and successful. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wait, "better conditions" is not so sure. Had I taken the same at the same time of the day, the contrast would have been higher. I was there in the afternoon too. I shoot ISO 200 because that's the lowest this camera can do ;) And I think I've proven I know solutions exist. Just that in this specific case it's a little tricky. Either I take one shot and lift the shadows, at the cost of noise, or I blend exposures with overlapping moving branches. I did it to some extent on the lower part (less noise if u look). In my view, the noise is not a deal breaker here, and who will pixel peep at this kind of picture? But I'm reworking on it. After the inputs I think I screwed it. It won't solve the bright area... a bright thing should render white, and this, I won't change. But I will fix the blue cast, the noise and see if I can lessen the CA (I don't think so). Yes for the perspective, I added some barrel distorsion in post cuz I like the effect (which caused a lot of failed nom for me in the past). This is subjective, I won't change :) And it doesn't matter if the nom fails because of that. - Benh (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I was there in June, the sun rose at 4:45am. So early the place might be desert. Then not only you're alone, but also the light can be just adequate. This is very challenging at day time, but well, we judge from the result. Also, where was the sun at that moment, in front or behind? That also is important and affects the final appearance. How do you explain my bamboos look green, at the base, and not those ones? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: I was there in the early morning and in the afternoon. This is the early morning shot with the sun rising on the right (can't be seen). You can have an idea here. Look closely and you'll see the bottom is orange (I just let it bright). My bamboos look blue because I screwed up my processing. I will fix (work in progress there). Not sure I'll nominate again, but I will see. Thanks again for this talk. - Benh (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Martin and Basile. Great idea, subject and composition, but the harsh light / overexposed sky and the quality drawbacks mentioned make any reuse difficult --Kreuz schnabel 20:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm ! Surprised with the unanimous opposes. I thought this shot was special (it usually wows people I show it to). Also surprised with the harsh light criticism... the sun was rising, and with it usually a soft light. One can look and won't see my own shadow simply cuz the light was diffused. Some people sell the shot with more blown out area for 4000 bucks. I do agree with the CA (can't do much) and with the too blue tones. I'll do what I can to fix. Thanks a lot for the inputs (will cancel the nom). - Benh (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Basile, sorry. On a side note, bamboo aren't trees . --Booth sift 22:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ;) - Benh (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note The F/value seems wrong in your metadata -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use a manual lens, so it shows f/1. Don't remember which aperture I used... - Benh (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the honest inputs. Hope you didn't take it wrong that I challenge them (I consider we're not on Flickr and here to discuss) - Benh (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calathea warscewiczii - Wilhelma.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2019 at 04:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, sharp flower photo. Cmao20 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I'd find the background distracting, but here it's compatible. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Mountain view in Robson valley.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 19:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British_Columbia
Info created and uploaded by User:JakubFrys, nominated by me. Cmao20, for the first time, uploaded and nominated his own photo on Commons. That inspired me to nominate somebody else's work for the first time. I think this shot deserves it, same as some other photos from this user. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support anyhow, but could you look into saving the highlights on the snow? Also the whole image feels a tad bit light (it might be just a gamma issue). Great nonetheless! -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had a "snowy discussion" before. Snow works like a mirror and it's natural to have bits of blown areas. Human's eye would perceive it that way anyway. I personally think it's OK. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of said discussion and while I'm not onboard I can understand the reasoning for the other picture. Here, it adds nothing and would take a total to 5 minutes to fix. It was possible 15 yrs ago for directly lit snow capped peaks and for whitewashed walls blasted by the Sun in an otherwise dark and shadowy scene (both are single exposure non-hdr). In any case all I've said was it's great but I think it would benefit from a little extra attention. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent, I usually enjoy this user's work. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One I wish I could have taken. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 15:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this one, excelent composition and ambiance --Wilfredor (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peyto Lake in winter.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 20:31:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Alberta
Info created and uploaded by User:JakubFrys, nominated by me. One more from JakubFrys - I like the light and the composition. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very scenic panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally love the view. Ahmad^talk 14:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:To Infinity and Beyond!.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 21:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
Info all by -- Benh (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's noisy and all, and I don't have a better gear than this I'm afraid... But I love this shot. -- Benh (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for overwhelming you with noms lately... But I'll give you a break soon enough, don't worry ;) - Benh (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blatant self promotion! SCNR, just kidding ;-P Anyways, as soon as the nom is over (not during, to not mess up the coding) the name of the file needs to be changed to something more appropriate for Commons. This name is too ambiguous and doesn't describe the photo very well. --Cart (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. I will rename, whatever the outcome is (I think I have rename rights). Thanks. - Benh (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps better equipment needed for this type of shot... Charles (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. But my gear is still the equivalent of a 18mm f/3.0 in full frame, which is still good option from a light gathering capability (which is what we should be aiming at when considering setup). Then there's sensor technology. The X-T2 is old, but not that much, and Fuji has good reputation for low noise because their sensors have more green photosites. But iso6400 in dark conditions is still iso6400 no matter what, and it was still a dark shot that needs some little +EV. I also choose to go light in NR. There are a lot of more advances techniques for shooting starry skies too. Some people do shoot foreground at low iso, and sky at high ISO, some do stitching (I could), when the sky is clear. But here I wanted me on the foreground, and I didn't have the clear sky anyways. Just to give some context. Remember that these aren't that easy conditions either... I'm constrained by the rotation of the stars (Earth actually, but all is relative), and I have a fixed element to consider. - Benh (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, there is some movement of the stars, but the overall impression is really good (apart from your choice of T shirt!) Charles (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exposure is at the limit of the 500 rule so no way to lower ISO. Thank-you for daring to upload and nominate it full-size. Quite an effort to stand still for 30s. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you have a small-sensor camera where anything over ISO 1600 looks like crap and you get the milky way barely visible. I also found out that it's totally useless to downsize star photos, even if they are way noisy, since you lose too much of the stars in the NR and that the difference is visible even at small thumb. --Cart (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: I'm quite happy with my Sony RX100m4's performance with astrophotography. To illustrate, I've just uploaded two pictures of the Carrouges Castle in Normandy: one taken with my Fuji + Samyang 12mm and another one taken with a 1" Sony RX100m4. Don't know about you, but I would not hesitate to nominate astrophoto shot with a 1" (like yours) here. And I'm glad to know I can travel with just that small camera in remote places and still have the possibility to astro shoot. Your issue comes more from your not dark enough location (you didn't need me to know, but for other readers). Also, from that latitude, it's unlikely you'd see much of the brighter galactic center. - Benh (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that my little Sony RX100 (which I like for the same reason you do; it's always with me) takes ok star photos like this (FP!) shot in only moonlight on the other side of the peninsula. I was just taking the Panasonic with the same sensor size but better lens for a test run, since I wanted to see if it was possible at all to get the Milky Way over the sea. I tested several ISO from 800 to 12800, that's how I came to the conclusion about max 1600. But for some strange reason, the Sony is better for night photos, not sure why. Thanks for the light map!, although it hasn't taken into account all the tankers and cargo ships in the area. I also know I should be a bit patient. In Swedish we call the Milky Way 'The Winter Way' since that is when we see it best. I was just hoping that I could perhaps get something now instead of standing waiting for the camera in the freezing snow. ;) --Cart (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which sensor Panasonic uses, but I can tell you that not all 1" sensors are alike noise-wise and DR-wise. The one in the Mavic 2 pro sucks (sorry), and I find it to be very noisy in dark areas. Sony is currently far far ahead as far as I can tell. The light map isn't everything. That Sept 17th night, you had a 90% full moon not that far (It rised a few minutes after you took the shot I believe). That really affects milky way visibility from my experience (on my shots, I also had full moon, that's what lits the castle. On other shots I don't show, we barely see the milky way). In fact, my "planner" software (Photopills) rates your night 1/10 for milky way visibility. I'm also surprised about your winter story. In December for instance, at solstice, the galactic center is far under the horizon, especially in your latitudes. I guess the Winter Way is more due to long nights giving you longer windows for gazing at the stars. But that is certainly not a good thing for milky way gazing. - Benh (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the moon rose a bit later behind my back (got some nice shots), but lots of high cliffs here to shut it out for a good while. I think the Winter Way is because our summer nights are so bright you can hardly see any stars at all, so winter=stars. The good thing about the dark winter is that you can do your night photos before dinner and don't have to stay up all night. :) Thanks for the chat and all your good advice, hope it's been of use to other readers as well. --Cart (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, I just made calculation and my Sony RX100m4 @wide end and f/1.8 is the same as 24mm f/5.0 on FF in terme of light gathering capability. So around 3 times less than my Fuji setup. Not that bad (if my calculations are right) - Benh (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For standing still for 30s on a rock in (almost) complete darkness. Focus on you (stars slightly out of focus) and actually the sky is more noisy than I expected and a bit blueish, but still good.--C messier (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info As pointed out, that was complete darkness there. The rocks and I were lit by one friend on the left, farther than me from the camera, and a friend on a right between me and the camera. The friend on the left let the light on for 2 sec, and the one on the right for 1 sec (we got that combination with trial and errors). Otherwise, I would have rendered as silhouette only. This is also a reason I look "sharp enough". I was only lit for 2 sec. I also selectively altered the WB of the sky to blue. Personal taste, I admit. And yes Charles, my t-shirt sucks :) I actually thought about cloning the texts out... I have a few dozens of those "running" t-shirts, and it could have been worse! Since I still have the PSD with the fine mask, I will give a go at selectively NR the sky (I should have done it before nominating...). - Benh (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great again, your backlog of nominations have all been excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Code (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed heavier NR (little touch) - Benh (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked again. It's really light and for the better (I believe), no worries. But please let know if you think it's too much - Benh (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special and creative. It looks good at 3Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Sky

File:Dayak Deah Women 160212003.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2019 at 18:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Ezagren - uploaded by Ezagren - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice setup but the light is too low for me.--Peulle (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good NatGeo-style shot. Cmao20 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle and a larger size would have been much better --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. I love the facial expression of a few of them. Their colorful clothes. The location. And so many details at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While the subjects and colors are beautiful, there is no info about what signifies this group of women (relatives, field workers, sewing cooperative, whatever). Without concept this becomes like old NatGeo 'let's round up the colorful natives and take a photo of them' photography. --Cart (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mimihitam (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File: Rups van dichtbij.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2019 at 13:58:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by [[User:Mx Lucy (talk)|]] - uploaded by [[User:Mx Lucy (talk)|]] - nominated by Mx Lucy -- Mx Lucy (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mx Lucy (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not up to QI standards I'm afraid. Charles (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: insufficient sharpness on main object --Kreuz schnabel 20:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maison Carree in Nimes (16).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 09:58:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info Maybe this one is better? All by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: it is better! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral surprisingly unsharp (and noisy!) for such good conditions. But I got that you shot at f/20... that's very very narrow (and affects the sharpness) and unnecessary. But the framing and colors are very nice. - Benh (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view, but the quality doesn't satisfy me, sorry. --A.Savin 18:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the quality is good for a night shot, and the subject and colours are great. I supported your previous version (weakly) and this is better. Cmao20 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20 Poc o² 09:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This angle and this composition are in my opinion much better than the previous nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but noise in the sky and not sharp enough. F/20 is too much, the sharpness would be better with an aperture like f/13. --XRay ^talk 12:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one more than the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harlech Castle Gatehouse Tower, Merionethshire, Wales - 25-07-2017.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 22:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#United Kingdom
Info OK, time for a self-nomination at long last. A view of one of the towers of the gatehouse of Harlech Castle, a World Heritage Site in Wales. I can't find any images of the castle in higher-quality on Commons. If anyone suggests it needs a perspective correction.... All my work, Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - just after I started this nom I made a couple of corrections, including nudging the white balance towards the cooler side as I felt it was a little warm before. This is now accurate to how it looked on the day. Anyone who viewed the nom right after I made it might need to clear their cache to view the new version. Cmao20 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Congratulations, Cmao20, for submitting your own work (as it seems to be the first FPC "all by you" if I'm not wrong). Well, in my view this tower is clearly a QI, and the light is good. However I'm a bit mitigated on the wow factor (that's subjective of course) as I don't see here a tremendous composition, nor an incredibly original subject. I'm not sure whether or not this one will become FP (I'd bet for no), but I'm personally convinced it is not an obvious one. Other opinions may differ of course. You'll see... good luck! -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Basile. Yes, this is the first time I have submitted my own work at FPC, I will upload a few more of my images over the next few weeks although I'm not sure if I'll try them at FPC or at QIC. Your opinion is always appreciated, even if you don't support. Cmao20 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not sure about QIC, be informed that a promotion there is much much easier than here -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hi Cmao, I'm with Basile basically. There's nothing wrong. It's properly taken and I guess it would pass QI assessment. But here is about "special" pictures, and I don't think that one is. Do you think it's a very special point of view? subject? Were the conditions special? If yes, then you did well to nominate. But to me it doesn't check any of these. And at an age when anyone can basically produce high quality picture, your picture has to stand out on other merits to get the stars here (well I guess, I'm not all the voters). Benh (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in response I'd say I nominated it because I felt that the perspective conveyed the height and immensity of the tower, and I felt that the light conditions were good that day. It also shows several important features of castle architecture from that time, included the arrowslits and the places where rooms would once have been constructed, and it shows the colour of the decorative yellow sandstone more clearly than any other image on Commons. But maybe these latter few are arguments for why it should be featured on ENwiki, not here. Thanks for your review anyway, it's always appreciated. Cmao20 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Your reason would probably be better received at enFPC. And yes here is also a lot of personal point of view, which can get really frustrating from time to time (when you think you took the shot of your life and no one seems to agree). - Benh (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as it reminds me of a similar FP of mine of another British tower against a similar sky (to be seen in better glory as the PotD on the enwiki Main Page tomorrow). Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Daniel. Your picture is excellent too, it makes brutalism look almost attractive... Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: while this type of geometric distortion works for towers, the adjacent walls make the scene a bit caotic, especially the cut off window. But nice colour and sharpness. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Your point is fully understood, but I think the frame would look a bit empty if the adjacent walls weren't there. And of course in practice there's not really any way to get the image without including at least some of the surrounding walls. That said, it would be better if the window wasn't cut off, I agree - but I've visited this spot a few times and never managed to get a better shot than this one. Cmao20 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! on your first own FP. Well deserved. --Cart (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cart. I thought it might do OK, but the voting at first didn't seem to back me up. Glad it passed in the end! Cmao20 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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