Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2021

File:Shah Ghalandar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2021 at 17:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Kiantavakoli - uploaded by Kiantavakoli - nominated by POS78 -- POS78 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- POS78 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have my doubts about the perspective, but I cannot check this properly because its size --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe if it were at least 3 times bigger, sharper and rectilinear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Co mmon ists 20:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Perspective definitely needs fixing. Also more categories. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek RolfHill (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Others --SM:!) (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etna Awakens on its Side.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2021 at 05:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Europe
Info The December 2018 eruption of Mount Etna and Catania, Sicily, Italy. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 16:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Awesome Buidhe (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Potential candidate for the Picture of the Year. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fiori di Prugno in marzo (Prunus domestica).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2021 at 08:25:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Beautiful flower on the right. But for me the colors are a bit unnatural. The background is also a bit disturbing. The photo seems a bit over-processed.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can work with others on the processing, but I really enjoy moving my eyes around this composition, and there are two sharp flowers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it's the same effect it has on me, that's why I decided to nominate it, all this blooming so intense around those two flowers arouses emotion, it seems that spring suddenly explodes. Thank you. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get the effect you describe, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Distracting background and busy composition. Also oversaturated, as Famberhorst noticed -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI accept any kind of criticism. But I guarantee that I have not saturated the image. It is just like that in reality. see the color of the wood which is natural (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer, this picture has a WARNING: No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac web browsers treat colors randomly. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am viewing with windows and I see natural colors. Thank you for your suggestion. I will analyze the next photos with this program. There is always something to learn.However, I have not saturated the photo, but I only increased the structure of the flowers. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"No embedded color profile" means the colors display differently in every computers. The greens appear like radioactive on my screen. This is fixable on Photoshop, but I see from the metadata you used the software Snapseed, which is, according to Wikipedia, "a photo-editing application for iOS and Android that enables users to enhance photos and apply digital filters"... -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Anna, the Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer can not add a color profile to your photo, it is only a tool to see what could be wrong with an image. The 'color profile' is part of the code in a photo and it tells computers how to display the color. Since that code is missing from your photo, different computers will show the colors in very different and sometimes strange ways. You need to go back to the photo processing program and see how you can add the information about the color profile. If you don't know how to do this, the are always good videos on YouTube for such things. As it is now, every person looking at this photo on their own computer, will be given wrong and sometimes crazy colors, that is why some users think you have added saturation to the photo. You can read more about this here on Commons at COM:PT#Colour space. --Cart (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For Basile Morin Yes, it is a little complicated. In practice I photograph with a Canon PowerShot SX540 HS, then I transfer the photo to a phone where I have my photo editing programs and I use snapseed, or adobe lightroom then I take the files and see on a Windows PC. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentW.Carter Thank you. Your advice is always useful (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHowever technique aside I would like you to be overwhelmed by all this blossoming of spring! We need it so badly in this bad time! (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose messy composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commentmy observation: I checked the photo with Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer and it corresponds to reality. My screen gives the same colors as Jeffrey's program. So I don't understand where there is error. Thank you for providing me with this additional tool. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they look the same since you looked at them on the same computer, your computer. Your photo is calibrated for your computer. But looking at the image on another computer of a different brand, with a different browser, it will look different. --Cart (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:شاه فیروز سیرجان.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2021 at 09:38:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Ebi.eftekhari - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but technically below QI-level. Noisy, CAs, DOF --Milseburg (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the light and color compensate for some of the technical shortcomings, but I have trouble getting past that big blurry rock in the foreground. It's possible it's unavoidable, though -- I don't know. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground distracting --Wilfredor (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and the tomb itself looks unsharp/oversharpened. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --IamMM (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bombus terrestris su Prunus domestica.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2021 at 16:14:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Apidae_(Bumble_Bees,_Honey_Bees,_Carpenter_Bees,_Cuckoo_Bees,_Orchid_Bees,_and_Stingless_Bees)
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:{{subst:PROPOLI87}}|]] -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp and we don't see the bee's face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Ikan --Co mmon ists 20:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lack of detail, please compare with the FP images in Hymenoptera gallery. --Ivar (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek RolfHill (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden hour sunset from the Dyle valley bird watching tower of Oud-Heverlee (DSC 2102 - DSC 2118).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2021 at 16:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Belgium
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Trougnouf -- Trougnouf (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit hazy but nice colors and impressive composition. --Laitche (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very nicely done and definitely a QI, but really it doesn't stand out from other sunsets we have. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Daniel. I'd need more interest in the sky (some clouds) to consider supporting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laura Pous Tió 4, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2021 at 16:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😲 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most sensual facial expression but clean composition and very good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice pic,but nothing of special for me --Co mmon ists 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose expression and composition don't appeal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp and Commonists Buidhe (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support facial expression makes it imho outstanding. --Ivar (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Gnosis (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charlesjsharp RolfHill (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this had been mine, I would not have it nominated per Charlesjsharp. --Granada (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stanisław Osostowicz - Chłop - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2021 at 21:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Other
Info created by Stanisław Osostowicz - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Other

File:Black-faced Woodswallow 1 - Sturt National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2021 at 14:11:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Artamidae
Info ccreated & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is nice but the bird itself isn't really special RolfHill (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Rolf --Co mmon ists 18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special to me. Look at that face! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brazilian soldier in Port-au-Prince 2010-02-26.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2021 at 03:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Chad J. McNeeley - uploaded by BrokenSphere - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poorly cropped, look at the hand -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above. Cmao20 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Folklore and Science Meet at Tiwi.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2021 at 03:55:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Oceania
Info Tiwi Islands, Northern Territory, Australia. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality and high EV, I just added it to 2 enwiki articles. Buidhe (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Buidhe. After the promotion we should rename the file (when reading “Folklore and Science Meet at Tiwi”, I would expect a photo of folklore dancers talking with scientists ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support including Aristeas' suggestion. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and quality. But Aristeas is right that the title is a bit needlessly flowery. Cmao20 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Krakow 2016 07.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2021 at 09:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Reliefs
Info Battle of Vienna Anniversary - created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM:!) (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM:!) (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks the outstanding sharpness I'd expect for an FP of a relief. I want its 3-dimensionality to jump out at me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek: Appreciate your comment and photos can always be sharper but with regard to the FP Gallery this hybrid metal style of relief is unique with the two similar reliefs not having the relative quality and detail of this nomination IMHO. This is not a stone carved sculpture which generally is more disposed to conveying a 3-D effect and in spite of the obvious weathering (outside wall and over 100 years old) I'd invite reviewers to look at some of the detail eg around the sword and the horse's head. --SM:!) (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might consider nominating this photo at COM:VIC, regardless of the results of this nomination, if it's best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --SM:!) (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Distel -- 2021 -- 5079.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2021 at 06:15:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae_(Sunflowers)
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 06:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like this photo even better if the stem were sharper, but an amazing sight! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I made some additional sharpening. --XRay 💬 08:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting and background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. -- Karelj (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. You've had quite a productive winter, it seems. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow is very rare at my home. This year we had several days and this was my chance to take photographs. The sessions were short because of around -12 degrees Celsius. Usually too cold for me, but I can't hold myself back. --XRay 💬 16:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae_(Sunflowers)

File:Pomegranate (opened).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2021 at 14:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I expect more sharpness for a studio shot --RolfHill (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that most are convinced otherwise, I take back my vote RolfHill (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support On my 28-inch 4k monitor it's razor sharp.--Co mmon ists 18:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting illustration -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Interior of Hallwyl House - Great Drawing Room DSC7306 - edited.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2021 at 13:25:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Sweden
Info Panorama of the Great Drawing Room in the Hallwyl House, created and uploaded by Rainer Halama - edited/tweaked and nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are always controversies regarding winning photos of WLM, and this image was my "WHAT??"-moment. When I first saw this at Swedish WLM this year, I thought for sure it was going to win, given that we don't have many interiors like this and next to no interior panoramas at all of old Swedish buildings. But the jury totally snubbed this. (Grumble...) I put a few finishing touches on it to suit the FPC better and uploaded it as a separate file. -- Cart (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me it is distorted and full of noise,sorry --Co mmon ists 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question This isn't a 3D photo? It looks like it should be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, AFAICS it's just a panorama, not 3D. --Cart (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thanks. I just find the distortion too great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info I feel flattered that this image has been nominated. I am aware of the issue of distortion in panoramas. I still prefer them to 3-D images, because they can be viewed straight without a viewer. I intentionally drew out the distortation to the end of the walls on either side, because, standing with the back to the fourth wall this was the only way to take in the whole room with my 12mm (18mm, 35mm-equivalent) lens, held vertical. This is the perceived field of vision, when you are standing at this point. Of course you move your eyes from left to right and back again at that moment. But this is what your mind puts together in your head when standing there. --Rainer Halama (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually one of those who objects to distorted images out in the open, but that is because we can't be sure or know, if a road/river/shoreline is bent or actually straight in reality. Here the distortion doesn't bother me at all, because it's easy for us to percive this room as rectangular despite being 'folded out' in this way. The photo has great EV (educational value) and you can pick out all the lavish details in it, and I think the sheer size of the image makes up for any noise in dark corners. --Cart (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it. --Gnosis (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose While I agree with Cart's defense of the appearance of the image, and Rainer's point about how unlike the many 360-degree images we've seen here and promoted this does not require a special viewer, I still find the appearance of the some of the corners unrealistic. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I am not a fan of ‘curved’ panoramas (nor of 360°-images), but this one feels really consistent and attractive. --Aristeas (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This motif need a full spherical panoramic view (360x180°) --Milseburg (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Distorted, but still good IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although distorted, I still like this image.--Vulp here 05:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case RolfHill (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghale sakve.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2021 at 11:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Iran
Info created by Dolphinphoto5d - uploaded by Dolphinphoto5d - nominated by POS78 -- POS78 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- POS78 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extremely noisy Buidhe (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpening --Wilfredor (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and wouldn't pass at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. I particulary regret this because it is a interesting motif and the photo could be much better if the post-processing was optimized. So often interesting photos are damaged in post-processing … --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, plus distortion and noise. It's probably time, with this many opposes, for the nominator to withdraw this one. Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 04:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --RolfHill (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown thrasher in CP (02147).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2021 at 15:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Mimidae_(Mockingbirds_and_Thrashers)
Info Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) adult in the snow in Central Park. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just lovely Toxostoma rufum female --Wilfredor (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! What distinguishes males from females? I didn't think there was a way to tell by sight — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Wilfredor: Yes, how do you tell the male and female apart? Everything I found says they are very similar. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support If we know it's a female, please identify it as such. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 23:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You'll soon become a bird photographer :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh oh. What does that mean for me? :) I certainly got much more into birding during the pandemic, and they've taken up an increasingly large proportion of my uploads here... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed :-) Well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --IamMM (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Want to support but I think it needs a 10% rotate clockwise. The stance does not look natural. I'd remove the dark patch below the tail. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and removed the spot. On consideration, I think given the number of people who have already participated, I'm not inclined to carry out the rotation, which would also affect the amount of space is left on the bottom/side. Part of the reason it may look natural is because it's standing on a slope. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! -- Radomianin (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hanooz 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Lovely focus and sharpness and nice clear background. Cmao20 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Askeuhd (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --RolfHill (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santa Afra volta a botte gloria di Sant Eufemia Mazza Carloni Brescia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2021 at 13:08:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate support Wish you could get a straight-on shot of it, but this will do. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your comment and support. The problem is that the fresco extends over two very different surfaces, a barrel vaulted ceiling with a very curved surface and a flat bottom as you can see better here. With a straight on shot you would loose most of the bottom and some of the lateral parts therefor this shot shown here seems to me to be the best compromise.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may not be straight but it's still superb. Cmao20 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the motif is nice and the quality is good but the POV is strange RolfHill (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @RolfHill: I would gladly accept a suggestion for a better POV. The church is just around the corner of my home. Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AS15-88-11866 - Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin - restoration1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 01:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space_exploration#Astronauts
Info created by NASA - uploaded and retouched by Bammesk (talk) and Basile Morin (talk) - nominated by -- TheFreeWorld (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheFreeWorld (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely FP, but this is a Delist and replace nomination that should be launched here, so as to replace the current FP, now deprecated -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Basile so rightly notes, you should withdraw this and start a 'Delist and Replace' instead. Check on the COM:FPC page how to do this. Then we can discuss and assess how much we should restore and enhance this historical photo. Can't help thinking that this new version looks more like a Lego set. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - TheFreeWorld (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dark red aronia leaves on a rainy day in Tuntorp.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2021 at 12:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info Autumn leaves in spring, my backlog is huge due to those eye problems. A cold spell one night turned the colors up to 11, especially on the south side of these hedges. Very little post-processing done, and it's actually desaturated to make it more believable. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the composition and the square crop a lot. But at full size it looks a little posterised to me, as if the red channel is blown. Cmao20 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Cmao20. Much appreciated. According to the histogram, it should be ok, but that never tells the whole story. It's things like this that are harder for me to see now. I've dialed back the red a bit. (You might need to refresh the file page.) --Cart (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The area in focus is very small compared to the photo and the blurred part is too processed in my opinion.Sorry. --Co mmon ists 09:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my noms wouldn't be complete without your 'oppose', but if you check the link above, you'll find that the photo is hardly processed at all. I adjusted the light and de-saturated the colors. No blurring only natural DOF, no filters. I wouldn't call that too much processing. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The process can also take place in the camera itself for the lens used, however the blurring part is not good. If I don't like your photos I object,doesn't it work like that? Or do you only like favourable ratings? Anyway you don't have to take it personally, if I found a photo of yours that I liked I would vote for it, I vote for the photo not the person. If the others will vote positively, why are you offended? I could be wrong, of course.--Co mmon ists 10:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can object, it was a tongue-in-cheek-comment since you do it so often. But I don't like being accused of things I didn't do with the processing. --Cart (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact no one has accused you, you see it too personally.--Co mmon ists 11:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I should have know better than to nominate such a colorful photo. --Cart (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zamosc 171.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2021 at 09:47:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments_and_memorials
Info "Hear the screams, cries and howls as Rachel mourns her children but refuses to comfort herself in sorrow because they are gone". Resurrection? Many children continue to be 'lost' in today's shadows! Created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM:!) (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM:!) (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, I would really like to support, but this is kind of small and doesn't seem very sharp for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your review - this is a small plaque high on the wall of the arched entrance-way leading to Zamość Cathedral so photographic conditions were far from ideal but important and powerful messages can still sometimes be conveyed by relatively small stark images and IMHO such 'attributes' should also be considered in assessing FPs! --SM:!) (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to remind you of the description of a Featured Picture: "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images." Not "this is a not-very-sharp picture of an emotionally moving but stationary object". And the fact that it didn't look that good even when you downsampled it - which you're not supposed to do in an FP nomination (OK, maybe Diliff did it, but his files were very large and fantastic, not reduced to this kind of size) - and that it looks awful at full size (sorry, that's just the truth) really doesn't give you pause in trying to argue that it's somehow one of the best photos on the site? I'm really sorry, I know this post seems harsh, but I'd like you to consider more carefully what you nominate and really choose your best photos, because I believe you are capable of shooting FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek: There are many beautiful high quality images in the Monuments and Memorials Gallery but there are not many photos that provoke much thinking about those who are being commemorated which IMHO is what the “finest images” of memorials should accomplish. Understand that others do not share my opinion and that my relatively crude photo of this small plaque does not meet your own high standard for an FP. However, I nominated this image because not only did it pass as a QI but in my mind it strongly provoked thoughts of the many children who suffered and died during WWII (as well as thoughts of the many children who are still today starving and dying around the world). Perhaps, as evidenced through reviews of recent images I have nominated of Mary, I simply have to accept that FP is not an appropriate forum for aspects beyond pretty pictures with good technical attributes to be appreciated, even when the main subject of the image under review is a religious sculpture that I would suggest was probably created from inspiring thoughts in the mind of the artist\sculptor. --SM:!) (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FP is about everything, certainly including a photo being moving, but a certain level of technical excellence is demanded for a photo of a stationary object. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reverted the downscaling. @Scotch Mist: Please see COM:OVERWRITE; if you wish a downscaled version, create it as separate file. --A.Savin 12:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very sharp Buidhe (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --SM:!) (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gdow Cemetery 65.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2021 at 07:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info Restored Statue of Mary in late afternoon light at Gdów Cemetery - created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM:!) (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM:!) (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but nothing on top that makes it special --RolfHill (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @RolfHill: Thank you for taking the time to review - IMHO this sculpture of Mary by Edward Stehlik is particularly expressive but whether this photo\light has captured that 'expressiveness' is clearly for others to judge --SM:!) (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me --Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above,sorry --Co mmon ists 18:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Perfectly fine photo but lacks that "wow" factor for me. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A quality photo of the sculpture, but the tree to its right is almost as emphasized and not nearly as interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your review but the tree, Mary's 'shadow' (which I could have 'removed' from the image), is not in the 'light' (still in darkness!) --SM:!) (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The contrast and size emphasize it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lac de Tavaneuse 31.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2021 at 20:01:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp,sorry --Co mmon ists 18:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I bet this was great to look at but the sharpness is not high enough for FP expectations unfortunately, voters here have very high standards for landscapes. Buidhe (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above RolfHill (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and it has stitching error on the foreground. --Ivar (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose A scene I look at and sincerely wish I was contemplating in person, but in addition to flaws noted by others, the WB is overall too cool, too bluish for me for this scene.
I think it's time to withdraw this nomination as it's not looking at all likely that it will be able to pick up any support !votes, much less enough to get promoted, in the next few days. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:African-scops owl (Otus senegalensis) male.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2021 at 17:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Strigidae (True Owls)
Info IMO a really well-composed and characterful portrait of this bird, that also shows a little of how its camouflage works in practice. No FPs of this species that I can find. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nomination, though I don't see this as FP myself! The branch in the foreground is annoying. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Charles, maybe I should have checked with you first. I get your point but I see it as FP because I love the owl's squinting expression and also the camouflage point. Would you prefer me to withdraw or shall we see how it goes? Cmao20 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd withdraw as I suspect it will not garner 20 positive votes by tea time. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose +1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've to agree RolfHill (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Years ago we had a lot of pictures that demonstrated the effectiveness of animals' camouflage. The problem is that this, the very thing that makes them uncontestable VIs, also runs counter to the principles we judge images by here, where the subject should stand out. I think we had maybe one picture here where the wow came from how effective the camouflage was. This is not one of those. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination OK, withdrawing per lack of support and the request of the creator. sorry Charles. Cmao20 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Night View of Nilkanth Dham Poicha Gujarat 11.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2021 at 03:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India>
Info created by Yugaljoshi - uploaded by Yugaljoshi - nominated by Yugaljoshi -- Yugal Joshi (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yugal Joshi (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs perspective correction. Buidhe (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also very poor quality (very unsharp, very noisy cellphone pic with lots of artifacts). Good compositional idea, but not remotely close to Quality Image standards, let alone to be called one of the best photos on the site. Probably time to FPX it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: As stated above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2021 (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:Urzad Wojewodzki (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2021 at 21:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is the left part of the building straight, whereas the right part is bent? According to openstreetmap and Google maps the whole building is evenly bent --Llez (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The best answer I can provide (this question almost killed my brain) is that, although there is a curve, from some spots it becomes almost invisible. It can be seen, for example, here, where left is also straight and right is bend. This effect is also possible (a bit less) from the drone views. --Andrei (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but the right side is out of focus, here I expect perfection, or almost...sorry--Co mmon ists 20:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Commonists. -- Karelj (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice capture but per above RolfHill (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crocus cultivars-20210326-RM-123445.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2021 at 18:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Iridaceae
Info Open flower of a crocus. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special light, perfect focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Purple veins ... purple veins" Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Iridaceae

File:Mount Ōdake crater and Mount Kodake.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2021 at 15:06:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Japan
Info created and uploaded by Mccunicano - nominated by Mccunicano -- Mccunicano (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mccunicano (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too much foreground IMO. Also it looks like the photograph may be tilted, look at the background left. Buidhe (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see where it might seem tilted, but that's the coastline not the horizon. Mccunicano (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Honestly I think the composition is pretty great as it is, but IMO the image quality is a bit too low. Cmao20 (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me kind of cluttered ... maybe in different light, with different conditions, this might work. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case,sorry --Co mmon ists 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The background blurring feels almost unintentional, which, to me, gives the image a sort of restless feel. --Askeuhd (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm OK with the degree of blur in the background, though the blurring starts a little too close with grasses that I'd consider part of the foreground, but I don't like the dirt-and-rocks foreground and just in general don't find the composition compelling enough to consider this photo among the very best on the site. I'm a little doubtful that I'd support this photo if it's nominated at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above RolfHill (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bogolyubovo asv2019-01 img06 Intercession Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2021 at 12:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Russia
Info The Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, Vladimir Oblast, Russia ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The dome is not perfectly in focus, but nice work. --Co mmon ists 18:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imo it has small ccw tilt. --Ivar (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Sorry - I like the photo but further to comments on slight CCW tilt and focus there appears to be a processing effect along the left edge of the dome --SM:!) (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pacific oyster from Brofjorden on a chopping board in Tuntorp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2021 at 23:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info Very fresh food. :-) This evening I went and picked some oysters in the nearest fjord. Two hours later they were on the chopping board in my kitchen. This was the coolest of them, since it had two other oysters and a lively barnacle attached to its shell. Focus stacked from 53 photos. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me,very far from Llez's work. Probably QI but nothing more for me,sorry.--Co mmon ists 01:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is far from what Llez photographs, it's not a museum piece, it's wet alive and food. --Cart (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are kind of stitching/cloning errors on the board below? --A.Savin 01:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought so too, but most of it are cuts from knives in the board disrupting the grain in the wood. --Cart (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. --A.Savin 23:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 08:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is not appealing to me for this kind of studio shot RolfHill (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I usually like to do food shots in the kitchen on kitchen-related surfaces. This is the surface where the oysters are prepared and I find it fitting. I will not pretend to use a flawless background that reminds me of an autopsy room when I cook. I find it strange that I always have to defend that I use the kitchen for food photography, to me it's the most natural place for food. --Cart (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apart from the rough background, well done. I'm envious that you can just go and pick them )) --A.Savin 23:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good photography to me and interesting shapes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But it is reallly a pity, that the native species Ostrea edulis is increasingly being displaced in Europe by this invasive species from East Asia --Llez (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! That is why I only pick this sort. So far the balance is about 50/50 in our fjords. --Cart (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the contrast between the chaotic irregularity of the shell and the near regularity of the wood. The shell also gets more fascinating in closeup. Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Honestly the background is not my favourite, but still, a really nice effort and it's nice to see something a little different. Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Martin church in Portet-sur-Garonne 17.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2021 at 10:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sure what is special with this pipe organ RolfHill (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Above,sorry --Co mmon ists 18:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting that part of the pipe rack (it's not the full organ; the console appears to be somewhere else) does double duty as a structural support ... can we say they're load-bearing pipes? I also like the symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for FP nomination, IHMO.-- Karelj (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO would be better with less noise reduction but still good. Cmao20 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A girl resting in shade during the summer heat.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2021 at 16:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting people
Info created by Maksimsokolov - uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by Maksimsokolov -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somehow striking to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Radomianin (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ikan Kekek RolfHill (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a very sharp and clean image but I don't think there's a "wow" factor that really sells the composition. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong leading lines aligned with subject's line of sight is what makes this shot for me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chachani, Peru ESA413331.tiff, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2021 at 14:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#South America
Info created by European Space Agency - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 20:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would prefer to feature a JPG or PNG version of this image that does not automatically download a giant file to your computer after accidentally clicking it. Buidhe (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: There is also a jpg version that is much smaller (3MB). There was no noticeable difference in quality on the screen of my phone between the two versions, however it is better to check on large screens for a more detailed look. --IamMM (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not seeing jpg artifacts on it so I would support that one, or otherwise png is a lossless file format that has smaller file sizes due to lossless compression and more compatibility with web browsers that tiff. Buidhe (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have downloaded the tiff and converted it to a png-file, File:Chachani, Peru ESA413331.png, all the formats are now also linked on the file pages. If you like, you can add the png (or jpg) as an 'Alternative' here on this nom and see if that works better. If you don't know how an 'Alt.' is done, just tell me and I'll fix it for you. --Cart (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cart, put the alternatives as you see fit. I prefer the PNG version as the main candidate. --IamMM (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed The main version is always the original nom, but that doesn't matter for voters, they will choose the version they prefer. --Cart (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand there is educational value to the shading of different kinds of vegetation, and that it was done with near-infrared. But while spectacular, when we have so many spectacular ESA images being nominated I have a hard time supporting one that attracted me with false coloring. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. If ESA feels that 16-bit color depth is needed then I have no problem believing it. TIFF doesn't necessarily compress natural images worse than PNG, they both primarily use the deflate algorithm. --Trougnouf (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference for the TIFF but I will support both. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the original TIFF but for a purpose such as POTD the PNG would be better. Is the difference in coloring between PNG and TIFF thumbnails a bug of the thumbnail generation software? --Askeuhd (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Buidhe --RolfHill (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Png-version of the file per request from IamMM. 'Pinging' previous voters for this change: Commonists, Buidhe, Daniel Case, Gnosis. --Cart (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 10:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Buidhe (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. (But I am fine with both versions.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for making the png. version. --Gnosis (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --RolfHill (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Chachani,_Peru_ESA413331.png

File:European starling in CP (33849).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2021 at 15:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Sturnidae_(Starlings)
Info European starling (common starling) on a branch in Central Park. It's a common bird, and a destructive invasive species in the US, but still quite pretty. Central Park is actually the site where it was first introduced to the US by someone who wanted to bring over all the birds from Shakespeare (thanks to Ikan Kekek for reminding me of this story). I nominated this other version first, but Bruce1ee and Iifar pointed out issues with that one that aren't present in this one, so here we are. :) all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I prefer this version. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the shadow is still distracting. --Ivar (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine for me RolfHill (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the shadow. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Rolf --Co mmon ists 18:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please correct the yellow clouds around the beak! --Llez (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Llez: Good catch. A Lightroom defringe issue, so I just removed the CA manually now. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supposed something like that. Perfect now. --Llez (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Suzdal asv2019-01 img39 Kremlin Cathedral.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2021 at 17:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Russia
Info A crisp, sharp photo of a beautiful religious building of an architectural style we don't always see so much of here. IMO the equal in composition, light and quality to other FPs in the category. created by A.Savin - uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Cmao20 for nomination. --A.Savin 19:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cross above is a bit strange --Co mmon ists 18:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Askeuhd (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but the tree on the right is disturbing, the right crop is not good and the motif isn't that outstanding RolfHill (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I do wish as well something could have been done about that tree at bottom right; however it is slight enough not to really distract. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kappabashi-dori streetcorner (Kitchen town - southern end) a sunny morning in Tokyo Japan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2021 at 01:21:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weird and interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good quality, but ordinary street scene. No wow for me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg. Sorry --IamMM (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support IMHO the light is a bit dull but it's still a nice street scene. Cmao20 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Milseburg.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg RolfHill (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The big head really ties together an otherwise normal-looking photo. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the big coffee mugs help, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True. I do love the cups. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here they are :-) Basile Morin (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fort de la Chartreuse (DSCF3625-hdr).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2021 at 12:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Belgium
Info by Trougnouf (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of the work of User:ComputerHotline. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I very much enjoy that, thank you. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I enjoy his work, too, and have nominated some of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Possible to remove the purple fringes at the bottom through the window of the left? I don't think this is the natural color of the plants -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you! They are actually pink flowers which I also mistook for purple fringes. The defringe module made things worse so I deactivated it there. I uploaded a screenshot of that window in current image with exposure turned off here. --Trougnouf (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Okay, thanks for the explanation -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 04:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Askeuhd (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Graffitti are not helping in a historic fort image but still ok overall RolfHill (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way it sort of looks like heavily stylized eyes and a nose ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Major Greenland Glacier Is Growing.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2021 at 06:07:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#North America
Info Jakobshavn Glacier on the right with mostly frozen Disko Bay in the middle and Baffin Bay on the left, western Greenland. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is quite different from the rest of the satellite pictures I have nominated so far. I would appreciate any feedback. -- StellarHalo (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. Wonderful details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery fixed. Please remember that you have to include the section of this gallery too now. With all these satellite image nominations, you have made it necessary to bring some structure to that page. --Cart (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Askeuhd (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Cmao20 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply delightful composition! -- Yitzilitt (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CP GE AC4400CW 8608 Morant's Curve.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2021 at 14:28:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – BriefEdits (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yugal Joshi (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition, timing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support obviously. Cmao20 (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cloudy sky and the slight golden cast on the trees gives it the proper late-winter mood. I almost feel like I'm there watching, bundled up but not too much. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case. --Aristeas (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /----A.Savin 20:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lupinus pilosus - Gedera Flowers 2021-02-13 IZE-066.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2021 at 10:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fabaceae
Info created by Dr. Zachi Evenor - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 10:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 10:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery fixed, you need the section for the Bot too. ~~Also please get rid of the black border or you risk having the nomination denied.~~ --Cart (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Cart (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not enough of the plant is sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Daniel. Compare the crisp crocus nomination above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, although I think that bit of plant on the bottom left should be cloned out. Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Daniel. -- Karelj (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above RolfHill (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 17:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merritt Island sandhill cranes at KSC (KSC-20210324-PH-JBS02 0023).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2021 at 07:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order : Gruiformes (Cranes and relatives)
Info created by NASA/Ben Smegelsky - uploaded by Hunster - nominated by Askeuhd -- Askeuhd (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Askeuhd (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, POV, background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Chalresjsharp, also pretty noisy. To be honest, I see nothing special here RolfHill (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, looking at this nom and photos like this, would it be totally wrong to have a 'Humor' page in the gallery? Or are we too "serious" to have a bit of (quality) fun once in a while. We already have Category:Humor. Yes I know, this should not be discussed on this nom, so I'm copying this to the talk page. Please leave any response there. Just posting here since this nom sparked the question. --Cart (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much is blurry, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per quality issues raised above --SM:!) (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sadly per above. Cmao20 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 17:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanadinite - ACF mine, Mibladen, Morocco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2021 at 15:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gotta vote for the caramel toffee crystals! :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting as well as high quality image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delicious Ricola :-) Basile Morin (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles. Cmao20 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals

File:Friedrichstrasse 7 in Bayreuth (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 19:35:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice building but not outstanding motif/composition and the light isn't adding any value --RolfHill (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per Rolf. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lac des Mines d'Or 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 19:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light, not convincing composition (too centered?) --RolfHill (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RolfHill. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bird Grass Morning Mist Dhikala Corbett Dec 2019.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 09:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info Grasslands in Corbett Nat'l Park in early morning mist. Created by KartikiGonsalves - uploaded by KartikiGonsalves - nominated by User:Tagooty --Tagooty (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - first, there's a big dust spot near the top-right. I'm trying to get a sense of the light here -- why most of the right, above the grasses, would be so dark? Also, it might be possible to id this bird, since it's not quite a silhouette. My not-very-well-informed guess would be Niltava macgrigoriae. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much to look at, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Buidhe (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tagooty (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:A girl standing in the rain.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 02:37:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
Info all by -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one, where we can't see her face, isn't working for me. Also expect people to complain about the crop of her elbow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot Ikan, I look forward to the constructive "complaints", as this is the most valuable part of putting the images for the discussion here. There are "sure-fire" photos destined to success from the beginning (such as a planned excellent photo of an architectural masterpiece or a sharp photo of a rare bird), but the most interesting thing is to find out the opinion of the experts for somewhat controversial photos (for example photos from street photography genre, where a split second decision to take a picture may lead to an unsuccessful crop). -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm far from an expert, just a guy with eyes and sometimes opinions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michael Jackson stole this pose with his fedora. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek RolfHill (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 18:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsurumi riverbank.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 02:22:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Natural
Info - The riverbank along the Tsurumi River in Tsurumi Ward, Yokohama, with gabion rocks lined up in the groin, protecting the embankment from erosion and providing a habitat for ducks and birds. all by Dandy1022 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --—

Comment - I will greatly appreciate your comment and will be the basis for my next involvement in these challenges. Dandy1022 (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The perspective needs to be corrected (vertical lines are not vertical here), there is relatively strong CA (chromatic aberration) on the buildings on both upper sides, there are blown areas on the beach, and I think the image its oversaturated. Hopefully, this helps. Please try Quality images first. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your feedback, which I can liken to an expert description. I will improve on the next challenge.Dandy1022 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, I wouldn't call this a natural place. It's a cityscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (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: The quality is not meeting most of the QI criteria. --A.Savin 21:24, 7 April 2021 (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.

Comment - Although voting for my participation closed early, I thought I could ask for more guidance from others, in Cayambe’s comments about “strong chromatic aberration” if anyone still cares, how can I correct it for my next participation. I apologize for asking for more opinions and thank you all for taking the time here. - Dandy1022 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on Dandy1022's talk page so we can consider this nomination closed. Other thoughts/advice welcome there. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Extreme poor quality and uninteresting composition RolfHill (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @RolfHill: no need to oppose after {{FPX}} has been added. it will close unless someone challenges the early closure. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also delays the automated closure of the nomination, since that takes place during the first Bot run 24 hours after the last time-stamped post. So it will be up for a day longer unless someone closes it manually. (Yes, my post will delay it further.) --Cart (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am grateful to those who opposed who gave me more lessons to improve in the future and especially to those who gave good advice, I will remember it. I apologize for submitting a poor-quality photo, probably due to the poor quality camera and software I use. I still allowed others to comment before it finally closed. - Dandy1022 (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freckles (14052401039).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2021 at 20:53:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lies Thru a Lens - uploaded by User:Tm - nominated by Edward -- RAMSES$44932 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RAMSES$44932 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me what sets this apart from many other similar images we have on Commons. Also a little strange that the nominator seems to have added this to many articles on multiple language Wikipedias, sometimes alongside the work of notable photographers. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of artists and photographers sees the Wikiproject (where anyone can edit and the whole world can see it) as a good platform to promote their images. Having your work in WP articles is a good way to get the algorithms that rules the Net to move your stuff up a notch in cyberspace. --Cart (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose overexposed and grainy, plus I can't see any Freckles. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- a pretty woman and a good image. The woman is very pretty, and the makeup at her face and her hair are cute. The light is also used very well (makes the woman look like she is the source of brightness). It is not the best photo I've ever seen on wikipedia, but it is pretty good. PS: Sorry if I made mistakes, English is not my language. -- Mcclipper ((talk)) | 6:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." --Cart (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ A nice image, mostly thanks to the model ː). But the photographer should also get some credits, because he knew how to photograph her. Not the best image, but it is a good one. mikechirco (talk) |7ː38, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to put the hour

Invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." --Cart (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2021 (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: Obviously no useful image, promotional stuff. --A.Savin 23:36, 8 April 2021 (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:Pond - Jardim Municipal do Funchal 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2021 at 09:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Fountains
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fountain gets a little too much in the way of the statues at bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree with this. I think the angle is brilliantly chosen since it makes the statue come alive (something we almost never see here) and it can be seen as two kids playing in the fountain. The kid to the right just getting his foot in the spray to be tickled by it. --Cart (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Support Cart's reasoning convinced me here. Cmao20 (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak support maybe a tiny bit too centered --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see potential but the result is not convincing, the crop/composition doesn't work for me RolfHill (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably would have cropped differently but nice photo as per Cart --SM:!) (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support effective for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart’s reasoning. --Aristeas (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my view, this is a very good picture. If the fountain in the foreground were continued on the right side, it would become even better. But I am not sure if it was possible --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 01:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Windows of the Frost Building (Toronto, Canada).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2021 at 03:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple, but pleasant. Good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice abstract, well done Cmao20 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Windows

File:1 Penny Onchan Internment Camp (rev)-7229.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2021 at 10:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info created and uploaded by Raymond - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was thinking how to have sex with someone with three legs. LOL --Gnosis (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting motif. Cmao20 (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadows. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Agree with Charlesjsharp - softer light would have improved this image, both shadows and the reflection at the upper edge. --Askeuhd (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no attempt has been made to clean the object.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure on this nomination, but please nominate to COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting object, but imho does not reach FP bar. For a coin FP I would expect a perfect shadowless studio shot. I made a comparable shot (File:5-Cent-Belgium-1856-Front.jpg) with imho higher quality, but I still mine is no yet FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above RolfHill (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting subject, but as others have already mentioned: it's really dirty and the lighting does not convince me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bud Rose.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2021 at 11:43:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info created by Yugaljoshi - uploaded by Yugaljoshi - nominated by Yugaljoshi -- Yugal Joshi (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yugal Joshi (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the background is very distracting. --Cayambe (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice rose, but per above. Also, we'd call this a rose bud, the opposite word order from the filename. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be better if those distracting bokeh lights at the top were cropped out, although I still don't think it would quite be FP. Decent quality though. Cmao20 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cayambe, Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above RolfHill (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reiche Ebrach Erlach Winter-20200101-RM-154532.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2021 at 19:31:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info The river Ebrach near Erlach. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the river frozen since you put this in the "Ice" gallery? Otherwise, I think this would be better in the "Places/Natural" gallery since there is only a small amount of frost present. --Cart (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Yes that might be better.--Ermell (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, fixed. --Cart (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little busy but I love the crepuscular winter mood. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Askeuhd (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light but cluttered composition and quality problem (camera shake) visible at the bottom center-right branches RolfHill (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an outstanding composition, too busy and inharmonic. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zaaddozen van een Alstroemeria aurea 26-07-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2021 at 19:08:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Alstroemeriaceae
Info created & uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support So many of Famberhorst's photos should be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 09:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --A.Savin 12:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support like Blossfeldt's work - in color! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for your nomination.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes looking at FPC noms makes me wish I could travel more -- some faraway planet in this case, I presume. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a future prizewinning book or album cover. What band do you imagine using this? Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites & al. --Aristeas (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:American tree sparrow in CP (41285) (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 03:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passerellidae_(New_world_sparrows)
Info American tree sparrow pulling tiny bits of fluff from the dead grasses in the Central Park snow. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo and a cute sparrow of a type I don't see on the streets. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. They're uncommon enough to be special when they're in town. They're only around in the cold months and the only place I've ever seen them (but seen them a few times) is up on a hill near the Harlem Meer (I updated the coords). It's a good spot for the "exotic" winter sparrows. :) Granted, they're still "little brown birds". — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 09:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely, slightly unusual composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the highest resolution but good light -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A bit cluttered, otherwise nice motif and lighting RolfHill (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_%3A_Passerellidae_%28New_world_sparrows%29

File:Anura sleeping on a wooden beam in Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2021 at 01:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Rhacophoridae (Shrub Frogs)
Info Polypedates megacephalus resting on a wooden beam. Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Potential meme material. Cmao20 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't go for the setting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Nothing special. Dull light too.Seven Pandas (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charles. It would work better without the distracting upper right. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too impressive not to support, and I don't mind the upper right corner at all. What I want to know is how you know it's asleep, other than that it's not moving. Its eye is half open. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is it's sleeping (or resting) because of the posture and the eyes almost closed, but maybe it's just dreaming of something in this state, thinking about what to eat tonight, or which partner to go with in the future? :-) Sure thing, though, it didn't move even a little during the relatively long photo session while I could take more than 200 shots (51 just for this focus stacked image). Thanks! Basile Morin (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Seven Pandas RolfHill (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.-Vulp here 06:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family : Rhacophoridae (Shrub Frogs)

File:Hibiscus syriacus capsule hoarfrost -20200101-RM-102111.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 01:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Malvaceae
Info A really nice focus stack of a seed capsule. As ever I find Ermell's focus stacks really impressive. created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom.--Ermell (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 09:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool and unusual Buidhe (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Narcis Tête à Tête (Narcissus). 07-03-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2021 at 04:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info Cheerful flower of a Narcissus 'Tête à Tête'. Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice and good quality, but the bottom crop is bad. I am missing something more at the bottom. -- -donald- (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per -donald- RolfHill (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't stand out from other flower photos (a little busy, actually, and the light is dull). Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --El Grafo (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sihlwald ramson 20200427 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 08:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Zürich
Info created & uploaded by Domob - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating this picture, I've been thinking about it myself for some time now. --Domob (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painterly. Cmao20 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but sub-optimum aperture : F/5.6 really limits the depth of field, and I would have preferred a background in focus like the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment f/5.6 on MFT equals to f/11 on full frame and delivers the best sharpness on this system. As I believe that this is a hand-held shot, f/5.6 + 1/25 s + ISO 400 is IMO the wisest choice for this shot. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Example of a shot taken at F/13 @24mm, so really not far from this picture. And all is in focus: foreground AND background. But I took care to focus at a good distance, while I suspect it was not the case here: it seems that the focus is too close (for my taste) -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback! My intention here was (if I remember correctly) to focus on the foreground and not necessarily have everything as sharp as possible; but I agree that might have been the better choice. Note that the camera is M4/3 (with a crop factor of 2), so f/5.6 is not as wide as it would be on full frame; but I could have chosen f/8 instead. --Domob (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you and Basotxerri above concerning this factor, but I'm also surprised by the level of blurriness behind, at F/11, thus I assume the point of focus could have been better, if chosen further, at an intermediate distance between the foreground and the background. Just my subjective feeling -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I don't see what makes this pic exceptional or of significantly more encyclopedic value than other photographs of the area/plant. I would also prefer more DoF. Buidhe (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Buidhe. I could see the potential for an FP in the woods beyond the stump, at a different time of day. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, the WB also seems to be too much on the yellow side --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --RolfHill (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porphyrobaphe iostoma bilabratus 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 09:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Orthalicidae
Info created and uploaded by Llez - nominated by -- Co mmon ists 09:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Co mmon ists 09:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and impressive, as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination --Llez (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job --Wilfredor (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Well executed but rather common shell RolfHill (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Where did you get the information from, that this subspeciies is a "rather common shell"? --Llez (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - My eyes told me that, I saw your gallery of shells and some of them are really astonishing from the aesthetic point of view, this one isn't at that level (to me). RolfHill (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Orthalicidae

File:Chiesa di Sant'Alessandro Pietà Civerchio da Crema Brescia.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 09:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp and not a beautiful bottom crop --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michielverbeek --RolfHill (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel; also the distracting upper left. Daniel Case (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cypripedium reginae - Presqu'ile.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2021 at 06:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
Info: showy lady's slipper (Cypripedium reginae). Second nomination - made the whites warmer; all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too strong flash, dof problems, noisy, not special subject --RolfHill (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to disagree: The subject is VERY special, it is a Königin-Frauenschuh, very rare. I could photograph a yellow one Gelber-Frauenschuh-Holzminden.jpg years ago. From a pure photographic viewpoint (background, composition, noise) the nomination here is not outstanding. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I meant not special in terms of beauty. If it's indeed a very rare specimen then I'd expect that this is pointed out somewhere in the FP nom or in the description page of the image, I'm not an expert in the field of botany RolfHill (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flash light makes it uninteresting, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I actually think this is well composed and well lit, although a bit noisy in places. Cmao20 (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ekspositsioon - Tiit Pääsuke.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 17:00:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Others
Info created by Tiit Pääsuke - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could we get a little backstory to this upload? e.g. Is OTRS from the photographer or from the artist? Hopefully the latter? Is there any link to a source url you could provide? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info OTRS is from the Tartu Art Museum, that has this painting in its permanent collection and they also got permission from the artist to share all the repros under CC SA-BY 4.0 license (also permissions from private collections owners, but that would be relevant with some other paintings we now have on Commons). The museum currently has Tiit Pääsuke retrospective exhibition “Nostalgialess” (even tho that could not be visited physically at a moment due to COVID-19 restrictions). Pääsuke is considered among the leading painters in Estonia in the 1970s and 1980s. In this February he also received Lifetime Achievement Awards for Culture in Estonia. That painting is from 1982 and that period could also be considered at the height of his fame, as in the 1980s painting was still a hugely important part of the culture scene (in 1990 it lost most of its notability; i.e "death of painting" reached to Estonia). Also, there is relatively little more recent art in Commons (i.e almost nothing). Kruusamägi (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. My concern is permission from the artist to share all the repros - unless I'm mistaken, the artist would need to explicitly release the original copyright (the painting itself) in order for it to be hosted on Commons. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Legally there is no reason why should the artist give the object itself under a free license for the photography purposes. Naturally, all of it is less obvious when we are dealing with paintings, so let's just say Pääsuke is a sculptor. Should he release his sculpture under a free license, so that we may freely share images made from it -- no! (but he could still allow everyone to share the images freely nevertheless and could choose to only keep the exact shape copyrighted!). To make this example more extreme to prove the case: what if we would throw FoP into the mix? We can think of an example when one sculpture is in a country where there is FoP, and another sculpture in a country where there is none... so in one case everyone can take as many images they like and do whatever they wish with them, but with the other... not so. Stating that a sculptor should release this other 3D object under a free license so that an image could be added to Commons would be extortion and legal nonsense. That is pretty obvious I'd assume. So let us now go back to the painting. Museum ordered a photographer to take photos of every painting that was put to that exhibition, those same images were used in printed materials and the artist also agreed that the same files could be published freely. Artist could choose on what does he allow and there is no leger reason that the paintings themselves should be under CC SA-BY 4.0. Let us go back to FoP: it is clearly different if an object could be freely photographed (like in a country with FoP) or if it would itself be under a free license (so that you don't need to bother about the lack of FoP and could just as well freely 3D print sculpture shaped keyrings and stuff). (As a side notice: we don't actually have all of the exhibition images in Commons: artworks from other museums are excluded, as it was unlikely to get permission from them). Kruusamägi (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - All material on Commons must be usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose. According to COM:FOP Estonia, Estonia does not have a compatible FOP law. Because the photograph is of a copyrighted work, the copyright of the work is relevant. Without FOP, and without that copyright owner publishing the work itself with a free license, unfortunately we cannot host it, sorry. :/ On the chance that I misunderstand something, I would appreciate a second opinion. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That specific image is under CC SA-BY 4.0. How is that not usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose? Nor is the FoP relevant with a painting (I just used this to explain the copyright, as it is important to understand that this is legally hugely different on what specifically is free and what is not... and how all of that works). You misunderstand that thing badly. Let's get back to evaluating the image. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll explain it a bit more just to be sure, thet there is no missunderstanding. Artist holds the underlying copyright (...or the museum, depends on what is in the contract between artist and the museum... but as both agree with the exact same thing, then this detail is not relevant to us and we don't need to investigate further). Now there is a photo of that copyrighted artwork. What is relevant to us: a) if that photo could be used freely and b) if that permission is valid in the first place. We know that the artist+museum has the copyright to both the artwork itself and to the photo of it and we know that they have agreed to CC SA-BY 4.0 license for that photo. So both a and b have the answer yes. You might still worry, that "this artwork itself isn't free" and you would be right. But the thing is that this is not relevant as we are dealing with the photo and whoever wishes to use or modify this specific image, then he or she is perfectly allowed to do that. They may not have the right to take some weird angle photo or that artwork (like the backside of it) and use that specific new photo freely (as the artwork itself isn't made free), but that is totally irrelevant in the current case as this doesn't affect this image even the tiniest bit. Like if we have one image of a sculpture, then we only need to worry about it and not about if "some other image of that same sculpture (by some other photographer) would also be free". Kruusamägi (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        After your request to get back to evaluating the image, I thought I would respect that and move it to COM:OTRSN and collapse/hide this thread so as not to weigh down the review. Sorry, I did not see this last message beforehand. I may be being dense here, but I think it could use another opinion. Feel free to {{Hat}} this section if you see fit. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know on why you want to make my life that hard. I'll keep that discussion open for a moment, but that should soon yes be collapsed. Or people would just look at this wall of text and skip this image. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If I'm wrong, I'll gladly collapse this and apologize for the waste of time. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain pending resolution of licensing issue. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info There isn't really a licensing issue. It is more of a misunderstanding of what is needed. The license is fine and permission is fixed. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alpenstrandläufer, Dunlin, calidris alpina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 18:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the gallery here>]]
Info created by Dirk Wedemann - uploaded by Dirk Wedemann - nominated by Pedalito -- Pedalito (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pedalito (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could I suggest that this image might be more appropriate at QI with some processing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sharp photo but IMO short of outstanding, a bit too dark and also the bird is a bit too small in the frame. Also, please add a gallery. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --RolfHill (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:LagunaMarChiquita-Bsas-1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2021 at 23:19:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Black and white view of Mar Chiquita lagoon, Buenos Aires province, Argentina

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Argentina
Info all by me Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky is noisy, and I wonder whether you should increase the contrast. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks Ikan Ezarateesteban 01:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sky is even noisier now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denoised Ezarateesteban 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems like there are a lot of artifacts and it looks strange. I'm not sure about the composition but would abstain at least if the photo looked better to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the black and white but I'm not sure this unusual composition really works, with the cropped-off railing in the foreground. There is a bit of white space coming from incorrect cropping on the left-hand side. Cmao20 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White border cropped out Ezarateesteban 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This could be an encyclopedically useful image of a location but it would have more value if it was in color. Also, I think you went a bit too far when jacking up the contrast. Buidhe (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above RolfHill (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination thanks!! Ezarateesteban 11:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Attingham Park - stained glass inner skylight by Nash.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 14:07:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United Kingdom
Info created and uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks ok but not special to be featured, also the detail isn't at the required level --RolfHill (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this might be a featurable motif if the entire thing were sharp at this size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, nice motif but a good but not great photo of it. IMO not quite sharp enough at full res Cmao20 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloeiende Euphorbia amygdaloides var. Robbiae. 31-03-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2021 at 15:19:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Euphorbiaceae
Info Typical yellow-green flowers of Euphorbia amygdaloides var. robbiae . Focus stack of 20 photos. This evergreen plant flowers in the Netherlands in the spring.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject and the quality are fine but the background is very distracting --RolfHill (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Think the 'dual contrast' works well and makes for a more interesting photo --SM:!) (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bright and cheerful. Cmao20 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 and SM:!). --Aristeas (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.-Vulp here 06:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wood stork (Mycteria americana) and Yacare caiman.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2021 at 18:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info IMO a really special capture from Charles who has managed to catch a wood stork and a juvenile yacare caiman in the same frame. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom. There's another caiman in the water. I believe that a juvenile is no threat to the stork, though an adult would be. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Buidhe (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great moment captured. However, the bank space is very tight. Overall the composition does not seem balanced to me due to the tightness of the bank space. There is noise quite noticeable as well --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 01:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New version uploaded with wider crop Maksim Sokolov Basile Morin and more space at the bottom. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the updated version much more --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 14:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support compo and wow outweighs some technical shortcomings (e.g. unequal denoising areas on the water). --Ivar (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good depiction of a good moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ivar. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Composition a bit tight at the bottom (not enough space to pay sufficient attention to the camouflaged caiman), and white balance on the warm side.~~ However an interesting shot of a highly improbable meeting 🐊🍽 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sōji-ji, Tsurumi, Yokohama IMG 0123.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 04:50:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Religious buildings

Info - Sōji-ji, located in Tsurumi Ward, Yokohama City is one of the largest and busiest Buddhist institutions in Japan.

Info created by Dandy1022 - uploaded by Dandy1022 - nominated by Dandy1022 -- Dandy1022 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dandy1022 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your valuable comment will be an inspiration for me for my next involvement in these challenges, please give your factual comment in this submitted entry.

Oppose Building is tilted. The shadow in the foreground is annoying and I would prefer a tighter bottom crop anyway. Buidhe (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Buidhe I agree with your feedback. This will help and thank you very much. - Dandy1022 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of detail, probably it's not possible shoot better images with this camera. --Ivar (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also would like not to see the sides of the roof cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is far from FP RolfHill (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The white border should be removed. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; composition just isn't there. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trillium ovatum - Aldergrove Regional Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2021 at 04:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Melanthiaceae
Info: Pacific trillium (Trillium ovatum); all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much better than the candidate above in terms of composition and quality, but still it doesn't look sharp enough to me, specially the stamina --RolfHill (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice structure --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice compo, but resolution and sharpness could be better. --Ivar (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to the slight but persistent noise off the flower. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case --Llez (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.-Vulp here 06:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Forecasting D-Day.jpeg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 03:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Europe
Info Western Normandy, France. As the name implies, you could see Omaha Beach just northwest of Bayeux. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a satellite image that maybe somehow approximates how an aerial reconnaissance photograph for D-Day could have looked like, had they used color film for that instead of the much emore common b&w. Not much wow in that for me. What's worse: It takes 7 paragraphs of history until the description finally mentions what is actually shown in this image. I think NASA is over-selling their shot quite a bit here. --El Grafo (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the details are so beautiful even if there's no amazing composition, but per El Grafo, the name of the photo needs to be changed and a clear description of what we're actually looking at should be added in the beginning of the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow for me compared to other satellite photos; also, I don't foresee encyclopedic uses for this, as we have plenty of genuine wwii aerial photographs which have higher EV for actual D-Day related uses. Buidhe (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't be too unimaginative about encyclopedic uses - not that FPC is close to exclusively about that (that's more VIC's purview). This could easily be useful in an article about Normandy, its land use, Landsat 8 images, the Operational Land Imager and doubtless any number of articles neither you nor I would think of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but this image only shows parts of Normandy, significantly reducing its encyclopedic uses. Buidhe (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Sure, but for that it would need a proper neutral description rather than piles of pathos we copied from NASA. --El Grafo (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't difficult to do. "Landsat 8 photograph of parts of Normandy, showing land use", etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo RolfHill (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. -- Karelj (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --StellarHalo (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eilean Donan Castle winter scene.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2021 at 09:49:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#United Kingdom
Info created and uploaded by David Ross W - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition might work, but the quality is indecent. In some cases I vote positively even if the quality is not great, but here it is unjustifiable.--Co mmon ists 11:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too many artifacts, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. -- Karelj (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality is dissapointing at full resolution. --Ivar (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I so desperately want to support this because the composition is so stunning, but the quality does not match up. Cmao20 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks cool at thumbnail size but at full resolution it does not impress. Buidhe (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- -donald- (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:TripleZ-G10-Pruefstand-Parkplatz-2021-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2021 at 19:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Building No 10 (Prüfstand) of Incubation and Business Center (Triple Z) in Essen photographed from parking lot side

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany>
Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I especially like the great afternoon light and how the shadow of the tree opposite winds around the guttering and building -- Tuxyso (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unattractive building; annoying tree shadow. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see any reason fo FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination —-Tuxyso (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lüdinghausen, Burg Vischering -- 2021 -- 5233.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 10:06:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info The mirror is part of a large info box. It is possible to went inside and have a look to the castle. --XRay 💬 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you to Ikan Kekek for the idea nominating this image. --XRay 💬 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had to look at it a couple times to understand what was going on. :) ~~IMO the branches in the top-left could probably be cloned out, but I know people have mixed feelings about such things.~~ Actually, they might serve a useful compositional purpose. I'm ambivalent. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 01:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very creative. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual photo, as per Rhododendrites it messes with your expectations a little. Cmao20 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gee, did HSBC pay a pretty penny to put its logo all over the castle? Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It took a moment ... I don't think HSBC does know anything about the history of their logo. --XRay 💬 05:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PK Thatta asv2020-02 img08 Shah Jahan Mosque.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 12:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Pakistan
Info One of the dome interiors of Shah Jahan Mosque, Thatta, Pakistan ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. It's a bit hypnotizing just looking at it on my computer. I imagine looking up at a pattern like this may be a little disorienting. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maksim Sokolov (talk). 17:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --Aristeas (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This may be the best picture of a ceiling I've ever seen! -- Yitzilitt (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yitzilitt -- Radomianin (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cavalier soldier Hals-1624x.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2021 at 06:30:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info Frans Hals' famous Laughing Cavalier, described as "one of the most brilliant of all Baroque portraits". created by Frans Hals - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant artwork, enough pixels to see it very well. Buidhe (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Buidhe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RolfHill (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good details --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Crop at the bottom left could be better, otherwise per Buidhe -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is part of the bottom of the painting cropped out? If it is, we shouldn't feature this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would crop, personally, and the top too -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're recommending cropping out parts of a painting? No, and perish the thought! That's OK only if you want to do a detail shot, and I seldom find those interesting, because the composition is the full work as created by the artist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perish the thought? So what do you do when a painting is framed 🖼️, clever genius 💡 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to crop out frames, except when the artist themselves deliberately painted on them. That's not this situation, except for part of the top, but there's no good way to crop that out without cropping out parts that he painted on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the very tiny size of the problematic portion, my opinion is this minor crop would not significantly affect the content -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating. Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am presuming that area at the lower left much discussed above is just the way the painting is. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/People#Paintings

File:TormentaMarChiquita.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2021 at 11:54:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Storm cloudsa and seagulls in Mar Chiquita

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
Info all by me, nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for me as a non weather-expert I only see very dark cloud (not too seldom at least in my country). Also the composition with the very tight crop in the dark foreground does not convince me from a compositional viewpoint. Could be FP if the foreground is in sunlight and in the background there is a dramatic storm coming. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. -- Karelj (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing sky but I find the composition a little bit lacking, there's just too little ground to provide context IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have been spending a lot of time lately sorting photos from "Clouds in ..." categories to "Clouds and blue sky in ...", among others. In the process I have seen many much more interesting photos of clouds than this. And I still wouldn't nominate a lot of them for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination thanks!! Ezarateesteban 22:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eichhörnchen IMG 2412.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2021 at 14:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Sciuridae (Squirrels)
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Duplicated image of File:Eichhörnchen IMG 1316.jpg, already nominated previously? --A.Savin 16:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes we've had this nominated and withdrawn before. Why? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The background looks a little different, but Fischer.H, talk to us about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The background was too loud for me, so I edited it. --Fischer.H (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, but then what you're saying is that the previous version was accurate, but you didn't like it, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having supported the original nomination I have to support this one, too. The background (building) is not what we love to see in animal photos, but it is just realistic, it shows that these animals now often live in the residential areas. --Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay 💬 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charlesjsharp, also I find the background colour in the previous version better. Both photos are duplicated and should be merged. I don't understand why are you continuing to disregard COM:OVERCAT Fischer.H. "Sciurus vulgaris in Rhineland-Palatinate" implies "Sciurus vulgaris", obviously. --A.Savin 13:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad background --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hard to distinguish subject and background, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:RIAN archive 543 A battalion commander.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 13:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by Max Alpert - uploaded by RIANbot - retouched by Hohum - nominated by TheFreeWorld -- TheFreeWorld (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheFreeWorld (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose would benefit from denoising, certainly denoising the sky. Buidhe (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree That's film grain and thus integral part of the image – a faithful digital representation of the historical analog original needs to include this. Removing film grain would be somewhat equivalent to retouching visible brush strokes in a painting … --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Isn't this an iconic picture? Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure if it's iconic or not, but in any case no wow for me. Very bad quality with strong noise, and the worse part is certainly the darkness of the sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a new version of already existing FP. Great picture, keeping in mind the time it was taken and the circumstances. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 01:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this is one of the most recognized Soviet WWII photos. The subject was killed within minutes of being photographed - to keep (normally valid) concerns about the technical quality in perspective. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment More details about this photograph here --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 03:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Maksimsokolov, provided that a link to the Wikipedia article or other relevant documentation of the facts he mentions is provided in the file description in every language. Thanks for the context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very poor quality and strong vignetting. --Ivar (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar RolfHill (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Question What quality are we expecting from the picture taken during the battle in 1942, under fire? The photographer did not carry Alpha 1 that day. Some other pictures are supported with crops and noise, simply due to the "wow" and uniqueness factor. For example, the Appolo mission picture on this page has the lunar module not sharp and a crop on the right side and, of course, nobody would raise this, since the picture is unique and the circumstances are special. If these were regular pictures, oppose would be in order; but for such unique pictures, their technical (very understandable and natural) shortcomings should not be the reason for opposing. Or am I wrong? --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 19:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think you are wrong. In recent years, technical quality has regretfully moved to the front seat of how photos are evaluated at FPC. This is because it is easy to spot and have an opinion about even for people who are not well acquainted with photographical composition, photo-historical aspects or how iconic photos normally are viewed. This not the first time (not by far!) we see comments like this about a photo that is viewed as a photographic treasure by the rest of the world. Some other iconic pictures that have been rejected are Guerrillero Heroico (I tried that one...) and Hair Like Mine. FPC is a little world unto itself where National Geographic is hailed as something to strive for and capturing elusive moments in time is less relevant. The Apollo photos became FPs years before the pixel-peeping obsession set in here. It may also have to do with the age of voters, people who took photos before the digital revolution are more used to seeing photos with film grain, and know how photos looked when you had a "fast" film (high ISO) in your camera to be able to shoot under difficult conditions. Voters compare with Ansel Adams large format stills and think you could expect the same quality from handheld camera in the middle of a battle. --Cart (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cart. This clarifies the situation surrounding the FP selection. I totally concur with you. While I am not a professional photographer by any means, I understand that a photograph is not only a technical feat. Most importantly it is art, and as such all rules may be broken for the sake of transferring the message or capturing a unique moment. In many cases, an image may be the best the photographer could do, being limited by circumstances. But it very hard to judge such pictures. It is easy (given equipment and controlled environment), however, to make highly technical pictures, well done in symmetry, sharpness, etc. It is also easy to judge such pictures due to very clear criteria (sharpness, crop, resolution, etc). That's also the feature of wiki approach: open market defines the prices, so to say. At times, masterpieces are sold for pennies --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 23:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support For an iconic photo like this, the discussion we should be having is which version we should promote. The educational value, importance, and wow are all build-in sufficient to cover any technical shortcomings. I'm also kind of aghast at the examples Cart mentions above. Sigh... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to your misery, even Pale Blue Dot (the hardest photo ever to take so far) got chewed up here. Twice. --Cart (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then I have to ask, cart, what keeps you from voting? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: This. I don't vote on other people's nominations anymore since I can't trust my damaged eyes any longer. It's difficult to decide were to draw the line, so it's better to not do it. --Cart (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

🧠 Opinion A soldier raising his gun like a killer is not necessarily a hero in the consciousness of everybody, whatever the camp, whatever the story.

The message contained in this picture is far from serene 🌼.

Celebrating this kind of virtue (sacrifice, courage, patriotism, or else) is always questionable in 2021, regardless of the photographic technique, regardless of the politics too.

Judgement at FPC usually follows from freedom to think, not from mutton behavior 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑. Wow factors are personal and seldom negotiable within the contributors. Most of us are just lucid enough to evaluate subjective emotions in parallel with the technical requirements, and in relation with the historical context too.

What quality are we expecting in 1942: Something better than 1941, I guess, with less noise and less vignetting.

It happens so often, flaws get forgiven at FPC. But submit a sort of kamikaze, controversial candidature, moreover weakened by explicit issues, that's no surprise a few "dissidents" splash the voting batch. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you that there are moral/ethical considerations. My support certainly doesn't mean that I regard this person as a hero, but that the historical significance of this picture gives it importance and educational value that compensates for some shortcomings. That by all accounts I've read it was an authentic moment in the heat of battle rather than a training exercise or photo op further makes me inclined to forgive its flaws. I wouldn't begrudge anyone for not wanting to feature an image that glorifies wartime violence, though, or to hold such images to a higher standard (or not to lower one's standards for it). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is called the "wow" factor comes not from the fact that this soldier is holding a gun and not from any ideology transferred by the picture. I put aside politics and ideology, since this is not the place for the discussion of those. For me, this wow factor is that the image was taken in the conditions of the battle, where the photographer was risking his life to take the picture. The photographer did not have (like many of us) much opportunity to compose the shot, to verify all settings, to put the camera on a tripod. Most probably he had to cover himself from bullets while taking the shot. Probably the decision to take the photograph was made very quickly. And still he made the image sharp and very well composed, showing the moment of the action. All without EVF and other technology we have today. That's what is special about this picture for me. It is easy to take an image of a wall of windows and get featured, as was the case with my own pictures. Just take the camera, put on the tripod, make the settings, take your time and take the picture. If necessary, return and take it again. The wall is not going away. Anyone can do that, given equipment. Some moments are impossible to repeat and the job of a serious photographer is to document those moments. Also, not all messages transferred by a photograph must be positive. Not all pictures must be flowers and animals in their natural habitat. Sometimes, ugly sides of reality (war, disease, abuse, etc.) must be preserved for history for us to be able to discuss and learn from them. My opinion is based purely on the discussion of the skill of the photographer in an extreme situation. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quality is very bad, even in the conditions. Moreover, this guy is not an example, not a model for civilized people in 2021. He's holding a weapon like a champion would raise the Olympic flame -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: The officer defended his motherland from fascism. He was the commander motivating his soldiers. He lost his life doing so. What must a civilized person do in 2021, if someone comes to his/her home to murder his/her family? Show a flower to the killers? I bet you would use any weapon you had at your disposal and you would forget about flowers that moment. It is easy to speak about taking quality pictures during battles and about being civilized sitting in one's kitchen when no-one is coming to invade you. Would you stop this with kind language and pleas to those who do this? I would like to abstain from such discussions however. I am here for the discussion of photography. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 01:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info We're still patrolling Maksimsokolov's edits now, and this user already reverted an inappropriate comment recently. The link above is not acceptable. Wikimedia Commons is not a battle ground, whatever the heat. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not battling with anyone. In any case, I withdraw myself from any participation in FPC. This is my last message here. Cheers. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 02:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may change anyway -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This change from "Wikimedia Commons" to "FPC" simply means that I will not be a part of FP community discussions in any way. I cannot except the treatment I have received here, where my messages are misinterpreted and I am falsely accused of civility violations. However, I will continue posting my images to Commons, since I will not engage in such discussions in that process. But enough clarifications. I always find myself to have to clarify since everything here is documented and I don't want my intentions and messages to remain misinterpreted by anybody. I hope this is all. I also hope that someone in this community will be able to investigate all this because such environment is dangerous for the project and for future participants --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 04:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is part of FPC, thus the message above doesn't make sense. I've already left a message on Maksimsokolov's talk page and will collapse some parts of the text here -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: You can't compare a 1941 photo taken at an exhibition dance under calm circumstances with a 1942 photo taken under extreme conditions. If I was down in a trench to take photos during WW2, I too would load very "fast" film (=grainy) in my camera to be ready for any eventuality. Do you have any experience with photographing with film?

When it comes to the subject: Let's pretend we are making the world's best possible encyclopedia. It would look very strange if it contained only pretty, non-violent photos. Words like "killer" or "hero" are not compatible with the WP neutral point of view and should not be used when discussing images here. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some neutral info When you shoot with film, you can't change what we now call 'ISO' between shots. It's the film that decides how fast a shutter you can use under low light. So you are stuck with the same 'ISO' for 36 frames (normally). "Fast film" for low light will actually be just as grainy if shot in 1941 as in a photo made in 1996. These days photographers can use two camera bodies with two different lenses at an event, back in the film days, the two (or three) cameras would contain films of different speed. The trick for any photo journalist then, was to guess what the light conditions might be so they could load the camera with the right film. Knowing you might be in a trench with lots of fast action and only one camera, the best bet would be to use a fast, albeit grainy film. --Cart (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar example. Noise, alignment, other technical issues that modern photographers can complain about. And it is also far from being a serene moment. However, it is the FP, and must be so. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 19:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take strong exception to stating that a photo of someone defending their country against genocidal invaders might be opposed on moral grounds. The Nazis murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews in Ukraine during their short occupation, yet somehow, a photo of someone trying to fight them off is some kind of moral hazard. This isn't about the murderousness of Stalin or the actions of fighters of wars of aggression. I take this personally. By the way, one of my great uncles managed to escape across Soviet lines when my paternal grandfather's ancestral town of Bodzanow, Poland, was occupied by the Nazis, but he wasn't able to take his wife and children. Every one of them was murdered by the Nazis, and he fought in the Soviet Red Army during the war, though he was a democratic socialist and not a Communist. If you want to insult him for fighting in the Red Army and trying to kill Nazis in self-defense or claim that he should have been a pacifist and also gotten murdered by the Nazis, I have nothing printable to say to you. One of my uncles was also a war casualty, who was shot down on a bombing run over Bavaria with the U.S. Army Air Corps, survived the fall and was pitchforked to death by Bavarian peasants. And I have absolutely zero compunctions about the work he did. World War II was the only war the U.S. ever fought that was unambiguously in self-defense, and pacifists were great for the Nazis because they were that much easier to line up and shoot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it personally is definitely not the right thing to do at FPC. If this document is too violent for your feelings, please just abstain or take a step back -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too violent for my feelings! I don't know about you, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relating here the story of your uncle, your grandfather and all your personal experiences, is rather out of topic, in my opinion. That was the meaning of my recommendation -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the army of a country defending itself against genocidal invaders who did their best to utterly wipe out my people and were responsible for tens of millions of Soviet deaths, yes, I do take that personally. I wasn't thinking of that when I voted for the photo, only after you posted your IMO highly inappropriate remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COM:NPOV. Now please stop talking about "your people" and taking this nomination personally. If you believe the promotion / failure of this nomination is in relation with your family members, you're just completely off the mark. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, who cares if the USSR had stopped fighting and I was never born because every Jew was wiped out! I should just be "objective" about that, right? Like hell! But do please note that I supported the photo based on Maksim Sokolov's explanation of the circumstances of when it was shot and the fact that it's an iconic Soviet war photo. You can easily see that I supported the nomination on April 8 and you made your remark on April 9. But feel free to keep digging yourself deeper into a hole and pretending that there's something inappropriate about my giving a damn about the victory that enabled me to ever live! Would you like to stop commenting now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, public unboxing of your family's stories and other existential problems has no place on a talk page dedicated to promoting (or declining) a featured picture.-- Basile Morin (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

☮ WP:COOL -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Visit the nomination page.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 10:18:37

Info A new version was created with a high resolution and restoration. (Original nomination)
Delist -- TheFreeWorld (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want the new photo as an FP instead you have to write {{delist and replace}}, otherwise there is no point in including the new version in this nominatrion. --Cart (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace Far better, and rightly replaced, already on en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/James Irwin salute. The previous version is downsized and too contrasted -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little hesitant of promoting a version that is so far from the original historical photo. Uploading higher resolution and restoration is one thing, doing a radical enhancing and upgrading is another. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you consider "the original", Cart? I guess none of us has seen the original color slide, so we can only guess which version is closer to it. Do we know what film stock was used? Compared to the very milky scan from the apollo archive project, the new restoration derived from it looks more reasonable to me, but I think I'd actually expect even deeper shadows from a color reversal slide. I think the current FP (likely derived from a different scan), on the opther hand, is probably going a bit too far in terms of contrast enhancement. It seems to have more detail in the moon surface, but that comes at a price: Details on the space suit that are clearly visible in the other two versions got lost in the shadows; color got lost. The ideal version would probably be a compromise between the two candidates. --El Grafo (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we here will ever be able to tell just how the "real" original looked, we can only use the copies released by NASA as "our originals". On previous noms of historical photos some have failed because people couldn't agree what the original was. Best we can do here is to make any restoration be plausible. Always difficult to say exactly when a restoration goes overboard. Brightening too much of the shadows here has taken away that special very harsh light that are on most moon shots and other space photos. There is a clear lack of good reflector screens on the moon. Adding the Topaz AI (which turns everything to plastic) to it and you get something that looks more like a Lego setup in a sandbox than an historical photo from the moon. --Cart (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you. Whatever prints NASA released (and negatives, if they released any) are the originals. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: No negatives releases, as these were shot on slide film, but copies have been released as transparencies: Article at PetaPixel (read comments as well!) --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Grafo I case you are interested, starting from that "milky" file you linked to, this would be my take on it. Only tweaking the light and exposure plus some de-hazing, no sharpening or AI. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, that it pretty much exactly what I had in mind! Shadows are harsh and deep as you would expect under those conditions. But the half shadows on the suit still have all the detail the film originally picked up and the colors on the flag have the punch you would expect from slide film. I think this is pretty much the version we should consider as an alternative. --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- new version looks like over-photoshopped. --A.Savin 12:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea which version to prefer, partly because I have no idea what sunlight and shadow look like on the moon. But that said, I do have an opinion about historic photos. I think the "original photo" is the print that's been widely circulated. In cases in which more than one version has been widely circulated, though, we could say there's more than one "original version". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really puzzled here and I don't like that current FP is downsampled from 16,8 MP "original" version to 5,8 MP. --Ivar (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace after comparing details in the shadows and crop on the right. --Ivar (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Savin--Co mmon ists 13:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cart and Ikan - I have little doubt that the new version is probably more faithful to the original negatives, but this is one of those photos that gains historical value from the format in which it was released. The current FP, with the higher contrast and deeper blacks, is probably less accurate, but it's the iconic way this photo looks. Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: As far as I know these were all shot on special order Kodak slide film, so no negatives involved. We are probably just looking at two different scans of the same original – both published by NASA. Depending on what hard- and software was used, those can look dramatically different. For negative film (especially black and white) I would agree: the printing process in the darkroom is an essential part of forming the final image, where things like contrast, shadows, highlights could be adjusted (like developing a RAW today). But here, the original is a slide, not a print. So yes, I think we should aim for the digital version that is likely to represent the slide best and I think in this case, that is probably Cart's version above. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth considering: do we even know if this scan represents prints that were distributed at the time well? Are there any digital versions of those prints? --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, El Grafo since you thought my version was good, I have uploaded it (File:AS15-88-11866 (21648389932) - edited.jpg). Do with it as you please. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, let's see hot it goes ... --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this candidate, I favor the alternative. --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For information, original is here, released by "Project Apollo Archive", which seems to be kind of official account -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Scaned by NASA's Project Apollo Archive, edit by Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace As indicated above, I think this one is probably the best digital representation of the original slide. Self quote: "Shadows are harsh and deep as you would expect under those conditions. But the half shadows on the suit still have all the detail the film originally picked up and the colors on the flag have the punch you would expect from slide film." --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info 'Pinging' previous voters: Houston, we have an alternative. Basile Morin, A.Savin, Ikan Kekek, Ivar, Commonists, Cmao20. --Cart (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, not convinced. I doubt the new version really has more detail, despite resolution (it's unsharp in full size), and look at the sky how noisy it now is. --A.Savin 17:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cart, it is a bit unclear to me about the history of this replacement file. The original upload seems to suggest it is an original upload of the file from Flickr (== File:AS15-88-11866 (21648389932).jpg). But it already seems edited (by you I guess) in Lightroom, and the further two edits straighten and crop it. Given we can't now fix the upload comment, could you perhaps give more detail in the file description summary as to the editing, just to clarify that the first version is already edited. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, can do Colin. I usually only refer to the original file in the 'Source' entry when I edit a file and upload as a separate file. That is one of the ways of stating where you start with the file. In this case, I found it to be the best way since it allows for people to take a look at exactly what edits I've done via Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer. Not sure how that works if I start with the original NASA file. --Cart (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above --Co mmon ists 19:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll abstain from voting on this version, too, though if the "original" is well-known, I think we should keep it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just replace by the current FP on Wikipedia, per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cart's version is better, for what it's worth. But I don't think we should feature a version that alters the harsh shadows and contrasts that were unavoidable in photographs taken on the moon. The softer light is more what we'd expect ... because we all live on a planet with an atmosphere that has plenty of dust to scatter light and soften shadows. But it's not how things were on the Moon. Our featured images of the moon landings should be truthful in this respect; this sort of alteration, aesthetically pleasing though it is, is the sort of thing that keeps moon-landing conspiracy theorists in business. I don't think this is consistent with the values of the Wikimedia movement, and certainly is not a wise thing to do in an era when fake news and disinformation circulates so freely. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a very good argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Cart (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /--Cart (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marktplatz in Lauf an der Pegnitz (1).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2021 at 11:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really wow and moving people are blurred --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel Buidhe (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred people aren't a dealbreaker for me, but I'd like brighter or otherwise more special light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bald rock surface of Högberget in Sotunki, Vantaa, Finland, 2021 April.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2021 at 10:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Finland
Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 00:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice lighting here, as well, but size and composition are improvable RolfHill (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for nominating this image! I'd like to address that this image was indeed taken by a rather small UAV which happens to have a Hasselblad sensor, a reasonably good one (for me at least). It is not indeed taken with Hasselblad DSLR. A better image to be taken from this angle would require one to have a whole another aircraft and is not very simple task in this day and age. It is not possible to take by a human from this angle. What ever is you concider the quality of the picture, I appreciate it to be this far already. Thanks! --Ximonic (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little awkward compositionally but I do like the early spring mood. Especially in such a boreal setting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2021 at 05:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The biggest blackberries I ever did see. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yum -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once again very appetizing. --Aristeas (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do not like the artificial background and its color --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support What software was used to combine it? or it was just layers in photoshop? --Wilfredor (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor: Helicon Focus for stacking and Helicon Remote for taking the photos. --Ivar (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helicon focus is good software. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I will test it --Wilfredor (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Focus stacking artifacts clearly visible, I added a note RolfHill (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RolfHill: Llez is right, it's just water with reflection. --Ivar (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok, if that's the case, I support, it looks though strange RolfHill (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think it is a focus stacking artefact but there is some water between the individual berries of the compound fruit (and also between the berries and the underground) --Llez (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Berry berry good! Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Labdajiwa (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Uoaei1; the background color and lighting feel very clinical to me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Türlersee panosphere 20200730.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 09:24:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Zürich
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are not too many spherical panoramics featured, and among those, most are cities / buildings and not nature. There is not much extraordinary on this picture, but it is a nice and peaceful place. --Domob (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a very large file, not possible for all users to download, and the ZoomViewer is not compatible with Panoramic Viewer. Would it be possible to have a smaller version attached to this? Like in this and this. Futhermore, the file exif lacks any data about camera-related parameters and it has no defined color space, it would be great if you could add these. --Cart (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Done Thanks for the feedback, I've uploaded a 70% version of this file, and also added some more EXIF data to the image (they usually get lost in the stitching process, but I added some fields back manually). --Domob (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Buidhe (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedalito (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the qualification that this !vote is based on the smaller version since the nominated one never loaded into the pano viewer. Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see a good candidate here but the image is tilted (trees in the center are not aligned with their reflexion). Otherweise there is a stitching issue with one of the wood boards (10th board beginning from the end) RolfHill (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback! I will take a look at the tilt, which should obviously be easy to fix. I'm aware of the stitching error, but there is not much I can do about it unfortunately; I already tried many different configurations for stitching, and this is the best I was able to produce. IMHO the error is quite subtle and does not disturb the viewer too much. --Domob (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not because of the projection but because the composition doesn't quite work for me. Maybe if the dock were longer on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see what you mean. When looking at the picture directly (not with a viewer as real spherical panoramic), then it would indeed be nicer to have the dock extend on the right as well and be more symmetrical. But I think the main focus here should be on viewing the panoramic as an "immersive" sphere, in which case the dock is fine at least for my taste. --Domob (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My mistake; I missed that this is a 3D panorama. However, in spite of having a cable modem, the 3D viewer isn't working for me. So unless it eventually shows up for me, I'll simply abstain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe there is a bug with the viewer, which gets triggered if the image is updated at some point (just my guess). You can view it with the downscaled version if you want. --Domob (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's very peaceful but I think I will continue to abstain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Addax - IZE-106w.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2021 at 16:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
Info created by Zachi Evenor and User:MathKnight - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacks definition. the light is not helping. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above RolfHill (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altare del SS Sacramento Michelangelo Grigoletti Vantini duomo nuovo Brescia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2021 at 15:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder ([talk) 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO stunning. Cmao20 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 -- Radomianin (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is very good but the bottom crop isn't and the motif and its lighting is interesting but not special enough RolfHill (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (after certain consideration). Quality and level of detail is of a VERY high level (as expected with your equipment). As already mentioned by others: the lightning is not optimal - the upper part is in shadow with the result of a moderate blue cast. Give the fact that you photographed only with available light in is nonetheless well done. A striking fact: there is nearly no motion blur on the persons praying at 4sec exposure. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cypripedium reginae - Presqu'ile1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2021 at 19:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
Info: showy lady's slipper (Cypripedium reginae); all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my last vote here RolfHill (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Callophrys avis - Var.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2021 at 09:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)
Info created by Lucastristan - uploaded by Lucastristan - nominated by Lucastristan -- Lucastristan (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucastristan (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks detail, visible chromatic aberration, far from other FP images you can find in the gallery you linked above RolfHill (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rolf. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and ~~appears to be incorrectly identified. With the whitish eye-ring, this seems to be C. rubi.~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, beautiful butterfly but blown highlights and a lack of detail at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krakow - Collegium Minus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2021 at 08:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would retouch the yellow sign in the window. But otherwise nice. -- -donald- (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, i oppose such changes. It would make the scene too perfect, despite its a part of a living city. That is a sticker of a private security agency, they often appear in Polish windows. --Andrei (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Andrei here. Also, such small details are what historians always look for in old photographs of buildings. They are time-markers and says a lot about the city at the time the photo was taken. I think our FPs should be a repository for the future as well as for current WP articles. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - and

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic,but not special for me,sorry --Co mmon ists 19:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Commonists --RolfHill (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I spot big blue halos above the street lamps, very distracting and noticeable from the thumbnail -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Not sure otherwise but probably not striking enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Useful image, certainly, but Oppose per Basile Morin Buidhe (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin.--Vulp here 06:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment blue halos are probably lens flare. --Ivar (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine street scene that would be the envy of any cinematographer. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would be proud to have taken this photo, which transforms a plain house entrance into a cinematic scene. --Aristeas (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case and Aristeas. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wroclaw-Mlyny sw. Klary.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2021 at 08:13:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp for me,sorry --Co mmon ists 19:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Commonists + cropped reflexion --RolfHill (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Commonists --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy composition awkwardly accommodated by framing. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwetzingen - Schlossgarten - Großer Weiher - Westende mit Brücke im Herbst 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2021 at 18:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info IMO a really nice composition with good colours and reflections. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photos with reflections have always a good chance to become FP :) In this case I like the colors and the light and the different trees and forms. Remembers me on a similiar FP by me, but I think your's is better - thus support. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Find the two cormorants ;) --A.Savin 01:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice painting...--87.15.243.240 07:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, but anonymous votes are not possible on this page, sorry. If you have got a Wikimedia account and just forgot to log in (this happens), could you please log in and sign your vote? Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for nominating the photo and all of you for your support and comments! --Aristeas (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice painting, sorry the I-pad logged me out --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem and thank you – that kind of unexpected logout has happened to me, too … --Aristeas (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 08:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are pictures within this picture ... and not just the cormorants. Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. James2813 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:American oystercatchers at Fort Tilden (60747).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2021 at 21:21:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Haematopodidae_(Oystercatchers)
Info American oystercatcher family portrait (Haematopus palliatus adults and chick) at Fort Tilden beach. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: very impressive! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Quality is good but the composition with the chick in the shadow is not convincing to me RolfHill (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 -- Radomianin (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk))

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

File:Windstille by Hanno Karlhuber.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2021 at 02:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Hanno Karlhuber - uploaded by Yitzilitt - nominated by Yitzilitt -- Yitzilitt (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yitzilitt (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~This image has been nominated for deletion.~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Responded to deletion request here; The artist released the painting under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, which the person requesting deletion must have missed on the page. Yitzilitt (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very high quality painting, and i like how it messes with viewer's expectations by having wind power machines, when the time period it looks like shouldn't contain those. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess you feel like the style of the painting looks pre-modern, rather than recent. I don't think so, but OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 06:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing FP-worthy here RolfHill (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until the DD discussion is closed ... it looks like it will be kept, but we have always stayed nominations of images up for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does one close the discussion? The issue seems to have been resolved at this point (and I'm not sure if I'm allowed to close it due to being involved in the matter). Yitzilitt (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RolfHill. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RolfHill. -- Karelj (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without prejudice to the delist discussion, it is not an artwork of FP level to me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mackenzie River.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2021 at 05:12:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#North America
Info Mackenzie River delta on the Beaufort Sea during the summer. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I will let you guys decide whether or not this is large enough for FP. There is another much larger photo of the same area taken one day after but it is much less wowy. I am willing to nominate it as an alternative if you guys insist. -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think no.--Peulle (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree, it's just a bit small given the number of lovely satellite images we have seen here lately Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does look cool but a looser crop to the right and bottom would have more EV for articles related to the river delta. Buidhe (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedbacks --StellarHalo (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAVMarChiquitaB&N.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2021 at 23:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Attendance Visitor Center of Mar Chiquita,

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Argentina
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 23:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow for me. Buidhe (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for me, this lacks clear a subject or compositional idea. --El Grafo (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a composition in which the subject is the entire composition, and it works pretty well for me, but I'm not sure it's an FP. However, I don't think that in a cityscape with trees, anything in particular has to be "the subject". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunlight and stormy sky over the mountains and paddy fields in Vang Vieng, Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2021 at 00:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing clouds. Powerful and picturesque scenery --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 01:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. Buidhe (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but I cannot see the wow-factor here RolfHill (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree RolfSeven Pandas (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 01:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Maksim. --Aristeas (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, no details in large areas --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But for my taste a little on the dark side.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing view to me, the light is what makes it. Cmao20 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose decent, and quality photography. But it lacks something special. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Christian (also, there are some ringing-like artifacts along the ridgelines, though I would not by themselves oppose on that basis as they are a relatively small aspect of the image). Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. I especially like the atmosphere of this picture. --Clément Bardot (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kapelle auf dem Michaelsberg - Untergrombach 03 - Vierzehn Nothelfer.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2021 at 10:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Figurines and statuettes
Info Figurines of the Fourteen Holy Helpers by an unknown artist, Chapel on the Michaelsberg, Untergrombach, Germany

S. Catherine of Alexandria, decapitatet 307, anniversary Novemner 25; against sudden death and diseases of the tongue
S. Vitus, martyred 304, anniversary June 15; against epilepsy, chorea, lightning, the bites of animals, and storms, and for protection of domestic animals
S. Barbara, decapitatet 306, anniversary December 4; against fever and sudden death, against lightning and fire, and against sudden and violent death at work
S. Blaise, decapitatet about 316, anniversary February 3; against illness of the throat
S. Margareta, decapitatet 305, anniversary July 20; Patron of women in childbirth, invoked against backache
S. Cyriakus, decapitatet 305, anniversary August 8; against temptation on the death-bed, diseases of the eye, and demonic possession
S. Erasmus, martyred 303, anniversary June 2; against intestinal ailments, stomach ailments, for domestic animals
S. Agathius, decapitatet 303 / 304, anniversary May 8; against fear of death, headache
S. Giles, died September 1, 720, anniversary September 1; against plague, epilepsy, mental illness, and nightmares, for a good confession
S. Denis, decapitatet after 250, anniversary October 9; against headache and against demonic possession
S. Eustace, martyred 118, anniversary September 20; against family discord, against fire (temporal and eternal)
S. George, martyred 305, anniversary April 23; against war threats, fever, plague and other things, against temptation and for good weather, for the health of domestic animals
S. Pantaleon, martyred and decapitatet 305, anniversary July 27; against cancer and tuberculosis, invoked for the protection of domestic animals
S. Christopher, decapitatet about 205, anniversary July 24; Patron saint of travelers, against epilepsy, storms, famine, thunderstorms and hailstorms, plague, toothache, bad dreams
created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Llez (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see them all at once, and thank you for the very handy summary of names, dates and anniversaries! (I see these Saints often in churches, but always forget which of them belong to the canonical 14 helpers ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Sharpening haloes on some of them are a little strong. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating especially with all the info. Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question About how big are each of the miniatures? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info About 30 cm each, see here, left of the pulpit --Llez (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. So not tiny like many miniatures are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Figurines and statuettes

File:Turbulent Tropical Skies.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2021 at 05:12:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Earth
Info Tropical cyclone quadruple threats. The 2019 hurricane season at its peak. From left to right: Hurricane Juliette, Tropical Storm Fernand, Hurricane Dorian, and Tropical Storm Gabrielle. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good. If you look carefully, there are some jagged edges which are especially apparent at full size at the top of the globe, but I mention that just as an observation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support In agreement with Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --Co mmon ists 19:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Buidhe (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cbrescia (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvelous. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:הסירה הטבועה חוף הבונים.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2021 at 13:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Shipwrecks
Info created and uploaded by Edopellach - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, but unfortuantely not sharp enough for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite strong green and purple fringing (chromatic aberrations) on contrasting edges and there seem to be more halo effects due to possible overprocessing. --Granada (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but visibly tilted, and not good quality at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical flaws noted by others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Long jetty in the shallow end of Gullmarsvik.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2021 at 09:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Sweden
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Cart (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me there is nothing extraordinary about this photo, sorry. I am not voting against it because I would like to know the opinion of others.--Co mmon ists 19:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should always vote after your own heart and how you like a photo, and not follow how other people vote. --Cart (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be mistaken, I would like to hear if others point out aspects that I haven't noticed, I would be more relaxed. I like to compare myself with others.--Co mmon ists 20:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Love it. Especially the converging lines of the pier, hills, and cloud lines at the rear right.Seven Pandas (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Witch's Forest - spruces with bare branches at Myrstigen.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2021 at 09:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Pinaceae
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author, -- Cart (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure what is featurable here, the quality is fine (apart from some blurry spots at the very top), but the motif/compo isn't. RolfHill (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the point is that the spruces with their bare branches stand in a row like an assembly of witches, dressed in dark gray/black, giggling and looking at the viewer sinisterly. At least I had that association when looking at this photo; it seems to evoke memories to some children’s books illustrations where the witches are depicted with their arms and magic wands in a similar pose as the spruces with their branches. --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made the right connection. :-) I always think this part of the forest looks like something from an evil fairytale or even Game of Thrones. As I often do, I wanted to try something we don't have at FP yet. We have tons of beautiful and pretty trees but wicked-looking ones are rare. This scene also has a nice pattern to it with the trunks and the branches. --Cart (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not see here anything so exceptional for FP nominaton. -- Karelj (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Subtle but I see what you are going for and I like it. Sadly I am not sure it will get promoted. Cmao20 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit mystic. --XRay 💬 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my reasoning above. --Aristeas (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support once I read Cart's explanation and saw what she had been trying to capture. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me this is a macabre picture. Scary too. The course from left to right is nicely displayed. The strip of light completes the picture for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I gave the composition a long enough time to work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angelica morrisonicola in Hehuan Mount DSC 1418-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2021 at 07:01:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Apiaceae_(Carrot_family)
Info created and uploaded by 潘麗峰 - nominated by 和平奮鬥救地球 -- -Peacearth（talk） 07:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -Peacearth（talk） 07:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another striking composition. If the technical quality were great, I would vote for this. Unfortunately, it is not sharp and there is a lot of noise and apparent chromatic aberration on the rocks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. -- -donald- (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are halos due to overprocessing. Striking composition, but technically weak post processing. --Granada (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Done better technically, the right side had a chance. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea, but per above the technical quality is too distracting — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination-Peacearth（talk） 05:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount Tappen and Shuswap Lake.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2021 at 23:16:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
Info: Mount Tappen and Shuswap Lake; all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, for me this is not extraordinary enough for FP --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree; we've had better landscapes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lodelinsart - église Sainte-Marie - 2020-09-09 - 18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2021 at 19:12:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Belgium
Info created by Jmh2o - uploaded by Jmh2o - nominated by Jmh2o -- H₂O^(talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. -- H₂O^(talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be a useful VI, but no great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Buidhe (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be very interesting to know why the church was destroyed in 2019/2020. Maybe I am blind, but I cannot find anything in the descriptions of the photos or in the Wikipedia articles about Lodelinsart. --Aristeas (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is one clue. There are some videos from town meetings on Facebook too. It seems the church, like so many other devoted to the Holy Virgin, is known both as 'Sainte Marie' and 'Sainte Vierge'. I've added the link to the file description. --Cart (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cart. Seems I was disturbed by the two alternative names of the church … --Aristeas (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the composition but it's a shame the whole facade of the church is blown out. IMO not the right time of day to take the photo. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the foreground is too dark. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photoelasticity - Spiked castor cup.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2021 at 13:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created and uploaded by Colin nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan stole the words from my mind --Co mmon ists 19:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work! -- Radomianin (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No idea what it is, but it looks nice. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those plastic things you put under the legs of furniture to protect carpets. --Cart (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 19:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support without the description it would make for a good game of "what is this thing" :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very bad framing. Too tight -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Inuksuk at Waterdown, Ontario, Canada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2021 at 03:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
Info All by -- Maksim Sokolov (talk). 03:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Maksim Sokolov (talk). 03:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above RolfHill (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this picture I took of an inuksuk near me more, but I don't consider that FP material either. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That one is a little small, but I love the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Ikan --IamMM (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made no comment about this photo, only about Daniel Case's photo which he linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry my mistake. Interestingly I find less attractive in the composition of the photo mentioned by Daniel Case, plus it is small. --IamMM (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose A good photo, not quite an FP to me, but please nominate at COM:QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brighton West Pier, England - Oct 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2021 at 05:12:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#United_Kingdom
Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support photo from 2007, but imo still a very good candidate -- Ivar (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree Ivar. --XRay 💬 06:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree XRay :-) Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A Diliff image i had never come across. Nice light, and the quality still holds up fourteen years later. Cmao20 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me --Co mmon ists 18:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Buidhe (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice lighting but quality is rather low RolfHill (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good QI image and excellent for 2007 but IMO not FP for today - just not enough wow. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what's special or transcendent about this, sorry. An unexceptional image by one of our more exceptional photographers. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Commonists .-- Karelj (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the folks who aren't overwhelmed by the technical excellence of this photo by 2021 standards, but ultimately, I'm voting for it because I find it poetic and I agree with those who consider it technically good enough still. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jabirus (Jabiru mycteria) on nest.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2021 at 15:55:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info Jabirus are the tallest birds in South America. They are reputed to have the best sense of humour of all animals excepting the hyena. A Tall Tale by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good focus to the birds --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's great. We can see details of their veins. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. Great composition, nice wow factor. --Peulle (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Peulle. Cmao20 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marabou stork (Leptoptilos crumenifer) in flight 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2021 at 12:04:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info In Africa, the largest stork is the Marabou, one of the so-called "Ugly Five". It was once stated to have the largest wingspan of any bird, but the condor and the largest albatross species typically have larger wings. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to be looking at you! Excellent photo. I find the bird interesting-looking, not ugly in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nosferattus (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sulfur - El Desierto mine, San Pablo de Napa, Daniel Campos Province, Potosí, Bolivia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2021 at 15:34:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Chemical elements
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just curious why you choose this green fluorescent lighting-looking background on so many of these otherwise great photos? It is not the most flattering or best color for objects unless you want to make some Matrix-related statement. --Cart (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cart: this photo has a grey background... please post off topic questions on my talk page. --Ivar (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this question off-topic since other users have also commented on your green backgrounds. I checked the background in this photo with the color sampler in Photoshop before I posted the question, since I wanted to make sure I didn't say something that wasn't true. It is not a neutral grey, but has a tint of green turquoise in it around the color #7f8b89. Anyone can check this. I just wanted to ask. --Cart (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Background color on this photo has not been altered during postprocessing. This is the result with my light sources. It's grey enough for me and imo has a good contrast with sulfur's yellow crystals. --Ivar (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it's a style choice, no problem. But in this case, since it is the light source, the tint will affect the sulfur as well as the background and thereby not giving it the perfect color. I think it's important for photos that are used as lead pictures in articles (and you have added it to 114 WPs), to have as correct color as possible of the sample. Most photographers will calibrate the camera to the color of the light source in a studio shot, or you can do it in post. --Cart (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hanooz 19:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful crystals. I'm OK with the background, but questions about it are surely on-topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I uploaded a color-corrected version over the original, background now grey according to color picker, and the sulfur lost most of the green tinge. Reload the page to see the change. Janke (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Janke. I was hoping Ivar might do this himself since it's his photo and people can respond badly to overwrites. Anyway, it all looks great now. --Cart (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info thank you Janke for the effort, it took a bit more time for me to rework it from raw. I hope I learned something today (lyrics from one estonian song: human is learning the entire lifetime, but dies anyway as a fool...) --Ivar (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's nicer this way; I particularly like the color of the crystals more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually had no problem with the lighting on the background before but it does look better now. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support high EV with true color of crystals Buidhe (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Chemical elements

File:George Floyd protest in Grand Army Plaza June 7 (73161).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2021 at 21:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events
Info George Floyd protest in Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn in June 2020. This major plaza was one of the most active protest sites at the height of the events last summer. I know protest pictures, inevitably chaotic, don't usually go over well at FPC, but I have to try once in a while. :) all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As protest photos goes, this one is actually well framed with the chaos contained in a nice compo. --Cart (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at this just as a composition, it could be quibbled with at the margins (possibly a slightly more generous crop at the top and conceivably on the right, though who knows what that would look like?), but it works well for me and we should make some allowances for this being an opportunistic shot of a demonstration of people in motion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best protest photos I have seen, it concentrates much of the protest and its message in a single nice image. --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately it did not work for me. I do not see any particular attraction in the photo. --IamMM (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Me neither, especially the back of the person right front. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Co mmon ists 11:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose way too cluttered Seven Pandas (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct me if one has already been featured, but I think a relatively new photo of a demonstration or similar event will never be featured on this site. Only photos that are already extremely famous iconic historic photos, such as the nurse kissing the soldier at the parade in New York for the end of World War II, might (or might not) be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking about the Historical section of FP where iconic photos reside, this is for the Events where we have similar photos of people expressing opinions, gaterings and demonstrations. We need more great photos of contemporary/current events of all kinds. FP is an anomaly in the photography world since we focus more on photos without humans than with. There are also contemporary photos that are already as iconic as V-J Day in Times Square; such as Taking a Stand in Baton Rouge, The Woman with the Handbag, the Patrick Hutchinson photo. These are so far copyrighted but if you can find free photos like them, they are most welcome. --Cart (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about the copyrights and thanks for the links to FPs. I think the 2nd photo wouldn't pass if it were nominated at FPC today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"2nd photo", perhaps not, but I'm glad we have it since FPC has arthritis and is becoming stiffer and less flexible with each year. We also manage to scare away new blood with new ideas after only a few FPs. Not good. --Cart (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I was skeptical, but I know Ryan wouldn't have nominated this for FP without a reason. And the more I think about, well, it may not be an iconic photo of last summer's protests, at least not yet, but to me it does a great job capturing the moment for the future. We can see that it was a nice late spring day out, that it was during the pandemic, that the protesters were not blocking traffic, that their message was generally positive, and we got the unintended irony of the center of attention being on two young white people while the only black person easily identifiable as such has her back to the camera. And the traffic light makes a nice dividing line in the picture. Protest photos usually aren't going to be natural places for a photographer to show off their compositional skills, and I've seen (and maybe even taken) many a lot worse than this. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Idem, per others James2813 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kroondomein Het Loo. 22-02-2021 (actm.) 35a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2021 at 05:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info created & uploaded by User:Agnes Monkelbaan - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek. This is a wall decoration. See File:Kroondomein Het Loo. 22-02-2021 (actm.) 33.jpg for some context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but I honestly don't see anything special,sorry --Co mmon ists 11:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why then are you asking if one of your photos could be featured? --A.Savin 12:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't think this is the place to talk about it. Secondly to get the opinion of an experienced photographer like Mr Charles. Why should that be strange? --Co mmon ists 14:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is surely nothing special about an ordinary shot of a feral pigeon or the Eiffel Tower. --A.Savin 01:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat I don't think this is the place to talk about it,however I don't have only those shots,you should study a little better,and anyway I didn't ask for your opinion. Thank you.--Co mmon ists 08:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commonists, I would absolutely encourage you to try a couple of your photos that you think are the very best you can offer. Selection by the photographer is part of the FPC process. That is how the rest of us do here. You have nothing to lose by doing it and should it fail, you will no doubt learn something from the comments. We have all learned important things about photography this (sometimes painful) way. I look forward to your first nomination. As I wrote in another post, we need new contributors with fresh ideas and new perspective. --Cart (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Cart , but I'd like some opinions first so as not to waste your time.--Co mmon ists 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we are always more benevolent towards new nominators. You will not waste our time! You can't be walking around the pool and dipping your toe in the water, at some point you have to jump in. :-) The experience will also make you a better reviewer. --Cart (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wouldn't have thought of this as an FP but I find it interesting enough to be promoted. Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too small -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for promoting my photo.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I'm glad others like it, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Walls

File:Thuringia Suhl asv2020-07 img20 PlDerDtEinheit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2021 at 11:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
Info City pond in Suhl, Thuringia, in the background there are Domberg hill, and Arms Museum building. ---- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but what would be rare or special about it?--Co mmon ists 11:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Splendid view with crisp sharpness, nice light and colours, offering an interesting contrast between the natural, curly, horizontal forms of the water lilies in the foreground and the reduced geometric, vertical forms of the buildings in the background. --Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Commonists. -- Karelj (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support exactly per Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The architecture, modern and ancient, the reflections, and the fountain make it special to me. --Cayambe (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO it' s impressive and worthy enough to become a FP. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality photo of an interesting subject. I like the juxtaposition of older and newer architectural styles. Buidhe (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it very much. --Ximonic (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat light --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak regretful oppose I like the summer mood and the sort of utopian feel, but ... as noted by Uoaei1 the light is flat and frankly it feels as if someone went in a little too hard on the shadow suppression. It's also a very busy composition, which alone for me wouldn't hurt it ... if we didn't have those awkwardly cropped reeds at lower right and the fountain blocking one of the buildings the image wants to us to look at. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Commonists. -- Karelj (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Already voted. --A.Savin 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Centre Block, Ottawa, Southeast view 20170422 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2021 at 18:45:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info A striking photo of the main building of the Parliament of Canada, that shows off the architecture very well. No FPs of this important motif so far. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a great building, and we absolutely should have at least 1 FP of it if not more, but I'd like a head-on photo in better light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer this to a head-on view. I think sometimes a head-on view of a building makes it look flat and lacking dynamism, the same reason one would rarely shoot a portrait looking head-on at someone’s face. Cmao20 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. (Sorry for Russian, it's difficult to translate in English) Время на часах чётко видно. Несколько неудачный момент с съёмкой здания — флаг не развевается =). Но общую картинку не портит, очень хорошее фото. --Brateevsky {talk} 14:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support After browsing all our photos of that building this one clearly stands out for me from the others, it gives a very good impression of the architecture. --Aristeas (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Brateevsky that it would have been nicer if the flag had been flying, though. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gloucester Cathedral Choir 2, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2021 at 19:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
Info Gloucester Cathedral is one of the medieval cathedrals of England and the burial place of King Edward II. The choir in its current form was constructed between 1350-77 and is considered exceptional for the detail of the carvings. All the usual superlatives about Diliff church interiors apply. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The reflective light on the floor is a bit irritating but in my opinion it doesn't destroy the grandiose overall impression. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting for me and per Radomianin --Co mmon ists 21:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support not the best of Diliff but acceptable Ezarateesteban 23:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ezarate. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Würfel, gemischt -- 2021 -- 5577.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2021 at 19:54:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Toys
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support encyclopedic value, added it to enwiki article en:Dice. Buidhe (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A colorful eye-catcher. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 21:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support +5 -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you, Tomer T, for nominating my photograph! :-) --XRay 💬 04:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The double-reflection on the glass spoils it too much, and can be avoided. Since the reflection is a significant part of the appeal, I think best-practice should be expected for FP. There could also be a better variation of dice. What are the cubes with white-black or green? Ultimately, the "still life" is a bit random, forced, as this isn't something one would see normally. -- Colin (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are hard to imagine, but the green and black/white cubes are also completely normal cubes (D6) - just not with points or numbers. --XRay 💬 10:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some photos are simply good and pleasant to look at, let's not kill it with overthinking and dissecting it. --Cart (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt green and black/white cubes, I'm just curious. How do they work or are they associated with a certain game? The cube choice/arrangement is really a secondary thing, just something that didn't help raise things imo. The thing that kills it for me is the double reflection. "Drunk dice" might be a suitable title? :-). It probably wasn't as noticeable on the related FPs with bolts. XRay, if you enjoy making these kind of images, I do encourage you to Google "double reflection in photography" and try one of the many ways to avoid it. -- Colin (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The green die with the black lines and the black and white die are very similar. They are booth normal 6-sided dice - D6. You can the black and white segments at the black and white die. The distance of the line to the edge (or the size of the segments) are different. So you have 6 different sides at each die. But one thing: I can't explain which side is which number. The dice were only borrowed. (If you are interested. Mathematical more interesting dice are intransitive dice. The article is more theoretically, but you can find intransitive dice at special shops.) --XRay 💬 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can do the IKEA-hack I use for jewelry. They have these hardened glass tops painted black or white on one side called BESTÅ. They are huge, sturdy and cost next to nothing compared to the stuff you buy in a photo store. So far I haven't noticed any double reflections, maybe I'm doing it "wrong" in some way. :-) I guess you can take any glass plate and paint it black on one side to get the same effect. --Cart (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great image, different from what we usually see here. Though if it were mine, I'd have cropped off some of that empty space at the top and gotten the dice in the center. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User:XRay: can you tell me, these dices are the same size like this file? 1-2 cm each, am I right? =) --Brateevsky {talk} 13:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lot of blue ones are a little bit smaller, but there are a white and blue one and a blue and a yellow one. These one has the same size. --XRay 💬 13:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK! And why D4/W4? It's should be D6/W6, these are cubes, all have 6 sides. --Brateevsky {talk} 13:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sh... happens. Fixed. Thank you. --XRay 💬 14:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CH.SZ.Stoos Fronalpstock Sequence Rescue-Helicopter REGA 16K 16x9-R.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 10:27:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Helicopters
Info created & uploaded by Roy Egloff - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! -- Radomianin (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder how this was done at this high resolution --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably done in two stages. First a series of shots centering on and tracking the helicopter. After it's gone, you do a normal panorama and merge it all. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wohohow. Great job. 150MPix with a 21 MPix camera. Made of 207 images. Original size: 32800x20500. wow. -- -donald- (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -donald-, where did you find those facts/numbers? It would be great to add them to the photo, just needs to be verified. --Cart (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the exif. -- -donald- (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. -- -donald- (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! It would be nice if the dustspots would be removed from the sky, but such trivial details do not spoil the big Wow. --Aristeas (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! And including an M. C. Escher-effect with an impossible perspective (See note). --Llez (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great picture, indeed, but I would like the dust spots, or at least most of them, to be removed before we feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, great shot --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support cool and unusual. I see some weird blurry patches in the foreground triangle of snow in the bottom right corner (stitching error?) but the merits of this photo more than make up for it. Buidhe (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! --Mosbatho (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nosferattus (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Forum Romanum (14).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2021 at 11:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is a bit crooked (see the columns for example) can it be fixed?--Co mmon ists 19:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some of the buildings are crooked. See note. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO a bit too light, but still good. Cmao20 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, especially the area around the arch of Septimius Severus would be even better if it was a bit darker (even the shadows are rather light there). --Aristeas (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose some buildings are clearly crooked. Buidhe (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Tournasol7, would you like to reply to the comments that some of the buildings are improperly tilted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the problem is I can't fix it... Tournasol7 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Another possibility is that they really are tilted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ixora or Jungle geranium, Jungle Flame, Rugmini, Rangan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 07:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rubiaceae
Info created by Vespertunes - uploaded by Vespertunes - nominated by Vespertunes -- Moajjem Hossain 07:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moajjem Hossain 07:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral Nice shot. It is a pity that the leaves have been cut off at the bottom. And the right side is too dark for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite sharp enough for me and per Famberhorst, but very pretty. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mockingbird in Bay Ridge (85082).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 17:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Mimidae_(Mockingbirds_and_Thrashers)
Info Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) adult on a fence post in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Ivar (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, though I prefer rule of thirds for eye. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did you hear him sing? I love listening to them sing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every once in a while I'll try to get a video when they're singing, then I watch/listen to it when I go home and remember that trying to record high-quality bird songs in NYC without a good shotgun mic is a futile exercise... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I think it's awesome that you are able to get so many good bird photos in your own town. I just have to give you some praise for that. It goes to show that if you have a good eye for photography, you don't need to go around the world with expensive gear to get great shots. Well done! --Cart (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But don't get me wrong, I'd love to have some expensive gear (sigh) and travel to get great shots. But I am lucky in that there are a surprising variety of habitats accessible via public transportation in NYC and we're right in the Atlantic Flyway so there are 250-300 species that come through in a given year (lots of work still to do). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re gear, yep, you and me both. Not saying you shouldn't get it (and travel), you deserve it, just saying you're doing great in this situation. :-) And you do have a lot more interesting birds than we have here. --Cart (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive shots. And we all want better gear, but it's too expensive and too heavy! Your camera body is better than my 'enthusiast' crop-sensor Canon, but I do have a longer 400mm lens. I hope to go mirrorless soon. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's true I'm not in the "woe is me" category of gear any more. :) A longer lens would be nice, but that one I linked is unrealistic to the point of not even thinking about it. It's the body I'd prefer to upgrade at this point. I'm feeling that 16 MP limit. Though I won't be upgrading anytime soon, I don't think. While the MFT format is nice, even the top-of-the-line cameras are capped at 20 MP (and they're just not as good in low light situations as a full frame). With Olympus dropping out of the MFT game there's a lot up in the air with the format (they sold their camera business to JIP, which says it's going to focus on high-end MFT only, but it's still pretty abstract). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going for Canon's R6. Not many pixels but, hopefully, information-rich pixels. R5 FAR too pricey. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a chance to walk around New Rochelle, you might get a better sound quality. I used to hear 3-5 of these guys on my way to work there before the pandemic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. So far upstate, though. :) #newyorkjokes. I might actually get a shotgun mic to deal with it. I'll have to see about how it'll work with my camera, but there are enough situations where I'd really like to record a song (or just not record traffic/people)... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of videos of mockingbirds, this is tangential but I came across this hoppity-hop courtship display last week. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like one of them flew away at the end. Can you tell which one is which sex? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not, as far as I know, a way to tell them apart by sight. By behavior, I would presume the one which flew away is the female but it's not certain. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Co mmon ists 19:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nosferattus (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mount Sir Donald panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2021 at 04:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
Info: Mount Sir Donald. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a complex composition but beautiful and with detailed depiction of the trees and the snow on them. The only real drawback I see is that the sky is just a bit blotchy in terms of different regions of shades of blue that aren't smooth, but it's not serious. Some more categories may be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 17:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I hate to point this out on an image I otherwise very much like, but what's the deal with that sudden loss of sharpness right at the gap between the two leftmost peaks? Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RelajacionMDP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 23:40:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Other
Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 23:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background is blurry and the photo is badly stichted together. Buidhe (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Buidhe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed background --Ezarateesteban 00:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether both backgrounds were fake or not, but I would suggest you use the real background. But besides, the subjects aren't sharp enough in the first place, the light is dull, and there's just nothing I find outstanding about this photo, even if your stitching were now seamless, which it isn't. I don't mean to be depressingly negative; it's just that this is FPC, so we have to look for the best of the best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. The photo can't really decide what it wants its subject to be. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silhouette of a fisherman standing on his pirogue at sunset with orange clouds in Don Det Si Phan Don Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2021 at 00:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing photo Cmao20 (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Penghu MountLin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2021 at 07:39:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Taiwan
Info created and uploaded by LinChunShan - nominated by 和平奮鬥救地球 -- -Peacearth（talk） 07:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -Peacearth（talk） 07:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great motif but unfortunately, the technical quality of the photo is not nearly good enough for FP (and also not good enough for QI). In the future, if LinChunShan has another chance to shoot this motif, wider crops on the left and right so that rocks on the left and part of the island on the right aren't cropped out would improve what is already a striking composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, nice composition but only the centre is very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually, for me the composition is the problem. The flock of birds at the top is distracting, and then there's that awkward crop leaving just the wing. Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - more detail would be nice, yes, but I don't find the composition to be a big problem. it might help to remove a couple pieces of cut-off birds on the edges, but otherwise it's mainly a sharpness issue to me. the birds in general are not a distraction but a feature, and what caught my eye. AFAICT, the Penghu Islands are known for their tern colonies, including a few endangered/threatened species. Now, I don't know what species these are (again, more detail would be nice -- this isn't a species identification picture support), but this caught my eye because the way they're scattered around makes it feel like you're traveling to the island with them. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry bird, distracting wing cut at the top, and the rocks are too unsharp at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roe deer in woodland, France.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2021 at 08:47:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order : Artiodactyla
Info Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) walking in woodland (west of France) in the morning. All by me.
Abstain As author --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great shot, love the composition!. But the fur seems to have a slight magenta/purple color cast to it, especially on the head. --El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Grafo: I have made a correction about this. Thank you. --Clément Bardot (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose far short of FP quality. Composition crops legs, even though hidden by grass. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp: I nevertheless adjusted the crop and the sharpness in a new version. --Clément Bardot (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am good with the changes. I don't mind the meadow covering the legs as the deer is in its natural habitat. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Left part is not sharp enough for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Seven Pandas--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice composition and colours; quality at full res is maybe a little bit low. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. The flowers and the light give it a special, springlike touch. --Aristeas (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support An eye-catching photo despite qualitative losses. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles; I also find the background too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, background too dark. -- Karelj (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles --Ermell (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great with the surroundings --Lupe (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --Gnosis (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Val Sinestra via Zuort naar Griosch 14-09-2019. (d.j.b) 07.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 15:19:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Switzerland
Info Mountain tour from Val Sinestra via Zuort to Griosch. New partially wooden bridge over the Brancla.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided. The light is a bit harsh but it's a nice scene. I do wish for a wider composition since this is somewhat heavy on the right IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose nice but not quite FP for me due to harsh light and some noise issues. I also agree with Rhododendrites on the composition. Buidhe (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Well-done technically and deserves its QI but ... the harsh light is aggravated by a dull sky, and overall the image is just rather static and does not distinguish itself from other images of the hiking trails of the Swiss Alps. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be better. --Lupe (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but not a WOW. --Gnosis (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fawn and white Welsh Corgi puppy standing on rear legs and sticking out the tongue.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2021 at 00:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)
Info created by Huoadg5888 - uploaded by Subsidiary account - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On hold I'm just discovering this image from Pixabay should be reviewed first, like Flickr, then I momentarily withdraw this candidature, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himalayas.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 03:23:40

Info Blurry everywhere at full size (Original nomination)
Delist I don't expect 99% of photos taken by astronauts on the ISS to measure up in quality to the ones taken by earth observation satellites such as the Landsat 8 BUT this is still wayy too blurry by that standard. This is our chance to set the standard for FPs of astronaut photography in stone. -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist quality not good enough. Buidhe (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Very interesting photo but really very blurry, CAs, etc. --Aristeas (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Clearly deprecated quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , photos from the ISS can be and are better quality now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not good quality. -- Karelj (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. Cmao20 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unsharp. --Mosbatho (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:SBB RABe 514 DTZ Rheinfall.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2021 at 05:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support even without the train. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles. Great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 10:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloemknop van een Magnolia. 18-04-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2021 at 16:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Magnoliaceae
Info Flower bud of a Magnolia in the early morning. Focus stack of 15 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support impeccable! --Ivar (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 17:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two buds, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer; it is 1 flower bud.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very detailed with the small droplets of the dew -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good that this Magnolia was not damaged by frost. (Almost all Magnolia flowers here have suffered frost damage.) --Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love those tiny water droplets you only see at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 22:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phidippus regius female 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2021 at 17:35:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Salticidae (Jumping Spiders)
Info created by Nosferattus - uploaded by Nosferattus - nominated by Nosferattus -- Nosferattus (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nosferattus (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a captive or a wild spider, please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: It was temporarily captive for the photoshoot, but then released afterwards. But it was caught in the wild, not captive bred. (Yes, people do breed pet jumping spiders.) Hope that answers your question. Nosferattus (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are so many vidoes of studio set-ups for jumping spider macro photography on Youtube. And this is one shot, not a stack? Nothing wrong with studio shots, but like with zoo-shots, it's nice for voters to know. Last year we had nominations of insect photos of insects that we dead - and we weren't told! Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was a single shot, and a lucky one at that. She really didn't want to sit still for the camera! Nosferattus (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support These tiny animals are difficult to capture, but their extraterrestrial eyes always fascinate me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lucaaaaas! --Granada (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the decription is very poor, could be better: size, locality and so on --Llez (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 22:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Salticidae (Jumping Spiders)

File:Tradisi mudik lebaran dengan kapal jelatik.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2021 at 14:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Agustinuselwan - uploaded by Agustinuselwan - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy and verticals are not well done. However I like the composition very much --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too small for me to support, though I like all these individual windows with a mini story in each. Please add more categories -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not done after 2 days -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose Great idea but too noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echte Mandelblüten April 2009.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2021 at 20:16:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info created & uploaded by 3268zauber~commonswiki - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support an old photo but quite nice and FP worthy to me. -- Tomer T (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I struggle to see anything special. 'Looking up' seldom works. Charlesjsharp ([[User talk:Charlesjsharp|
Oppose Perfectly OK but not at all outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) head.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2021 at 08:55:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)
Info The hyacinth macaw is the world's largest parrot and is classified as vulnerable, mainly due to predations for the pet trade. There are two FPs of heads. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe you'll get more sharper [sic] feathers another time, but the foot, beak and eye are great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 22:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting that you chose to shoot this species in this light, greatly diminishing their usual bright blue color. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)

File:Krakow- Collegium Novum- brama wejsciowa 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2021 at 06:27:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Red-and-green macaw (Ara chloropterus) juvenile.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2021 at 21:38:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)
Info 5cm smaller than the hyacinth macaw, but much more colourful. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.Ermell (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, and of course a pretty bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- -donald- (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 🦜 -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. (Some fragments of denoising at the branches.) --XRay 💬 15:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)

File:Windows in Quebec city, Canada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 02:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Windows
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but not interesting to me, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zen! The symmetry emanates quietness. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Buidhe (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO, it is a balanced, symmetrical image composition worth supporting. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Appreciate what the photographer was trying to do but IMHO not FP per Ikan. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan,sorry --Co mmon ists 19:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak support I like the symmetry, but it would be a lot better with most of that space on either side cropped away. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple, but really good. I like these kind of minimalism. --XRay 💬 17:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the second glance. --Aristeas (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. Cmao20 (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan.Ermell (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too simple. Nothing interesting here. Enjoyer of World (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Wilfredor (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daphne mezereum flowers - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2021 at 05:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Thymelaeaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV Buidhe (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done, nice background, harmonious colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nice Garden Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 12:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Bangladesh
Info created by Vespertunes - uploaded by Vespertunes - nominated by Vespertunes -- Moajjem Hossain 12:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moajjem Hossain 12:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Question Is there a color version? If so, I'd be curious to see what that looks like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also would like to see a color version. Buidhe (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Weak support here. The high-contrast B&W is certainly eye catching but the composition with the clouds is what makes it so dramatic. I do wonder if the sky has been edited at all to achieve this effect? There are some strange things going on with some of the clouds, but that may just be a result of e.g. "texture" or "clarity" kinds of settings? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed and posterized sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Manipulated sky showing artifacts -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin, I like the black and white but I feel like the clouds are a flaw. Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conchero de Ixtaczoquitlan.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2021 at 01:56:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by CelisLaura - uploaded by CelisLaura - nominated by ProtoplasmaKid -- ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is below the minimum requirement of 2 megapixels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2021 (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:Landscape with rainbow and the Old Bridge over the Nam Khan river in Luang Prabang Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2021 at 19:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info IMO a harmonious composition with gentle light and the rainbow to add the finishing touch. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Cmao20, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful moment --Co mmon ists 11:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rooster portrait, France.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2021 at 13:23:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Galliformes (Gamefowls)
Info Head of male chicken rooster (Gallus gallus domesticus), France. All by me -- Clément Bardot (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Clément Bardot (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this is a particular breed of rooster that can be identified, please identify the breed in the file description on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp photo. Cmao20 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, appropriate background -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support How sharp!!--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but please fix categories properly and add coordinates. --A.Savin 18:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Location added --Clément Bardot (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And categories, what about them? --A.Savin 20:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks --A.Savin 08:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Galliformes (Gamefowls)

File:Saint-Charles Cemetery and Saint-Charles river.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 19:16:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Canada
Info All by Wilfredor (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me, and I feel like black & white was a good choice for mostly bare trees and a cemetery. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found it interesting to show the river and how with the rain and the passing of the years, part of the corpses could permeate the river. The trees without leaves also represent the lack of life, this photo had practically no color in real life --Wilfredor (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just ordinary image for me. -- Karelj (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Luguber.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wilfredo's explanation was useful but without it I don't see anything FP-level in the photo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:ถ้ำเขาหลวง-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2021 at 17:17:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Thailand
Info created and uploaded by BerryJ - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, conditional on other relevant categories being added. At least a category for caves is a must. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather unexceptional composition does boast fine detail, but this comes at the expense of graininess overall, severely blown highlights at lower right and distortion near corners. I know it was a long exposure, but we've seen them done much better in cave photos we nevertheless didn't promote. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition in my view, with the right side cut too tight -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Baumwurzel -- 2021 -- 7057.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2021 at 04:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 04:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 04:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. We're looking at a stump, not roots, though. Some of the white parts of flowers are very bright, but that doesn't really bother me and certainly doesn't destroy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just improved the white parts a little bit. --XRay 💬 09:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slight difference, but like I said, it doesn't matter much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. Cmao20 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, an excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mile (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is my favorite of the current candidates — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting ... why is the sapwood darker than the heartwood? Do those gradients in the former represent fire years and recovery? Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It can't be fire, it's a garden tree. May be there are some dry years. --XRay 💬 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mount Tappen and Shuswap Lake1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2021 at 03:31:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
Info: Mount Tappen and Shuswap Lake. Better light compared to the previous nomination. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Beautiful, though you might want to see what you can do about the artifacts that are visible in places. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~White balance is too warm IMO~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: removed artifacts, reduced colour temperature. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed my vote for now because I'm not sure anymore. I preferred the yellow glow in the previous version. And why did you change the clouds? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basile was correct, it was too warm. The original image was too cold, and I overcompensated for it initially. A photo taken around noon should not look like something taken around the golden hour. Also, I reprocessed the sky again. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but I don't like it as much. I'm still undecided. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, now. Daniel Case (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Karelj (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perna viridis 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2021 at 06:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Mytilidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Masterful! --Ivar (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of the colour. --A.Savin 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to my experience seeing these shells in the Caribbean, the colors should be less light and more contrast. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info There are certain color differences between the individual specimens. The natural occurrence of this species is the Indo-Pacific, in the Caribbean they were introduced in our days, so it is possible that the Caribbean population, which derives from only a few animals, deviates in the color. A good example of the variation in color can be seen here, and they all come from the Philippines! --Llez (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for your explain. I have also noticed that shells exposed for a long time to sunlight lose color (like the shells found outside the sea) and are different from living organisms. Possibly other factors such as the age and density of the waves, or parasites could also change the appearance --Wilfredor (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ermell (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. Cmao20 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Pulling mussels from the shell ..." Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Mytilidae

File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - A VIETNAMESE REFUGEE CHILD WITH MAGEN ADOM HAT AT BEN GURION AIRPORT.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2021 at 06:46:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1970-1980
Info created by Moshe Milner - uploaded by Matanya - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough wow for me, hat cut off on right edge Buidhe (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Buidhe. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Andrei (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue jay in PP (30960).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2021 at 20:37:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Corvidae_(Crows,_Jays_and_Magpies)
Info I've been trying to get a good shot of a blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) for a long time now. They're very common where I live, but very wary of humans, so I mostly see them from a distance or at awkward angles. When I can get close enough, it's usually for a second or two before they fly away, resulting in nice but poorly captured/composed photos. Finally, in this case, my brief two-second opportunity allowed capturing something decent. It's not perfect -- there's a bit of a shadow there -- but I'm happy enough with it to give it a chance at FPC. :) all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. But again, coordinates are desirable. --A.Savin 21:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful bird with a raucous song. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 22:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support high EV Buidhe (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as you say, shame about the shadow. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding photo. Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:White-rumped Munia 13.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2021 at 13:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info--The white-rumped munia sometimes called the striated finch in aviculture, is a small passerine bird from the family of waxbill "finches" (Estrildidae).

All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough and some work would have been needed on the branches. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo but sorry, I agree with Charles - the bird is just not sharp enough. Cmao20 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately too blurry --Lupe (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Wikipedia, the bird is only 10-11 cm long, but in that case, the best way to depict it would be with more of the background cropped out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luigevaip - Tiit Pääsuke.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2021 at 22:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Others
Info created by Tiit Pääsuke - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Example of a modern painting. We hardly have none in Commons. Pääsuke is considered among the leading painters in Estonia in the 1970s and 1980s. In February he also received Lifetime Achievement Awards for Culture in Estonia. This painting belongs to the collection of Tartu Art Museum and the museum currently has Tiit Pääsuke retrospective exhibition “Nostalgialess” (even tho that could not be visited physically at a moment due to COVID-19 restrictions). So here is a bit of it the digital form. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not my sort of art, but it deserves the star. Cmao20 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bakar tongkang prosesi.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2021 at 14:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Agustinuselwan - uploaded by Agustinuselwan - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, unrealistic colors, heavy vignetting, CAs and white halos probably due to over-sharpening -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Grtek (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One I didn't need to look at at full-res. Too much going on in this image, especially given that everyone in it has their back to the camera, and per Basile the vignettes are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Danu Widjajanto (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cows snoozing in Heden, Lysekil.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2021 at 13:30:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
Info Synchronized cow-snoozing on a farm in Heden, Lysekil. It took me forever to arrange the the cows in symmetrical positions and make them appreciate the Rule of Thirds. ;-) <joking> All by me,-- Cart (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Andrei (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing interesting for me, sorry --Co mmon ists 18:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. In this discussion, it has been decided to strike out all his votes. --Aristeas (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand the efforts as described but the scene is too common to me, the wire fence and the building IMO disturb the scene, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is what I call a real review. That is how an oppose should be written. As I said here, so pay attention opposers. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A concise review is often better than a long sermon ;
A concise review is always better than nothing -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose +1 and also per Michielverbeek -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Froim my experience, herding cattle is worse than cats. Getting four cows of the the same breed (Ayrshire or Ayrshire mix?) to line up with such symmetry is visually striking. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope people understand that I was joking about arranging the cows, that is impossible. Now clarified. Symmetry in the cow-world is accidental, so when you see something like this, you take the shot whatever the background. --Cart (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed. Cmao20 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I sometimes understand form differently from you, for whatever that's worth. I readily accept that the fortuitous arrangement of cows is interesting, but I'm not finding enough in the rest of the picture frame for me to satisfy my eyes in moving around it. There are situations in which I support photos that don't have linear arabesques that captivate me. In some cases, a photo is simply so striking at the image level that I feel like it deserves a feature. There are also times when a photo of an animal or object is so impressive that I don't think a great composition is necessary because it's so impressive on the level of documentation and encyclopedic/educational value. Having said that, I'm really unsure whether writing at this great a length was very useful, though I gave it a try. I will say that I looked at this photo several times before coming to this decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ikan for taking the time to explain. When someone turns something down, it's always better to know why, than to get just a brief shrug. Trying this photo was in line with a previous thread here about featuring unique and unusual moments in time, photos that can't be recreated vs. static photos that can be created thousands of times. FP should be big enough to include both (plus a number of other kinds of photography genres). --Cart (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, again for what it's worth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination It was worth trying, but it's time to take a bow and withdraw this now. --Cart (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Head of European herring gull (Larus argentatus). Saint-Malo, France.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2021 at 07:55:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~We have not been able to establish identity of this gull at VI.~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, but we setted the species of the bird in QI . This is exactly the bird. Perhaps it should be pointed out that this is not a fully adult bird? -- Ввласенко (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question ~~Are you 100% sure it's the same bird? The background is so very different.~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I have 10 consecutive shots of this seagull (general view and head alternately), taken at intervals of seconds. From these frames, I have selected two presented on this page. I can send it all to you if you wish. -- Ввласенко (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many thanks for the explanation, Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am grateful to you for help, which helped to correctly establish the species of the bird. -- Ввласенко (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. --Clément Bardot (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Clément. We've seen nominees with sharper feathers, but this is fine for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Clément. --Aristeas (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Necklace made of rough diamonds.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2021 at 09:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Jewellery
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author, -- Cart (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, I appreciate that you abstained, everyone should. Very elegant, like your photo. --Co mmon ists 11:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice gradient from top to bottom.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice,Even if there are black or white spots around --Co mmon ists 18:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question I like the photography of the necklace. What are the subtle horizontal lines in the background? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something uneven in the paper I used for the reflection or the light. This is a photographed gradient made in natural light from a window and not a perfect artificial background. I honestly didn't think about it --Cart (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support That's absolutely fine with me. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should sort out the green artefacts in the background lower left and the bands mentioned by Ikan Kekek. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the bands were actually there, I don't think they're a problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green stuff sorted. The downside with natural light in the countryside, there are green plants right outside the window. They tint everything. I'll leave the bands, any attempt to fix that will make it worse and more artificial. --Cart (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support better now, thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad, some traces of editing could be cleaned. --Mile (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Catalog quality (but of course!) Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raikoke Volcano Erupts (48132762546).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2021 at 07:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Volcanism
Info The 2019 eruption of Raikoke. This is a photo taken by an astronaut on the ISS during Expedition 59. created by NASA - uploaded by MarginalCost - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please keep in mind that the quality of astronaut photography 99% of the time won't match up to quality of photos taken by Earth observation satellites -- StellarHalo (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 10:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question is that strong noise or sharpening artifacts on the photo? --Ivar (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded new version with partial denoising. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV, not replaceable Buidhe (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Buidhe but I'm not sure it's an FP. However, it should be nominated in any case to COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Grtek (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per StellarHalo. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Enjoyer of World (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena#Volcanism

File:Turtle rock in Prospect Park (01717).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2021 at 15:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Emydidae_(Pond_Turtles)
Info When the sun is out, turtles in this lake compete for space to bask on the various rocks and logs jutting out of the water. This rock was even more crowded than usual, with turtles regularly climbing up or sliding off. There are three kinds here: red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans), yellow-bellied sliders (Trachemys scripta scripta) and a river cooter (Pseudemys concinna). See image notes for which is which. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun to look at and really good educational value with all the turtles identified by species and subspecies. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 00:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harsh light, but special picture in its kind 🐢 -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you compensate for the harsh light by reducing highlights in RAW? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan; the harsh light has been handled very well. --Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a new version to try to reduce the harshness a little more (by reducing contrast using Lightroom sliders and adding it back with the tone curve). Looking for thoughts on whether it's an improvement or whether I should restore the original (I'm not sure myself): @Ikan Kekek, StellarHalo, A.Savin, Basile Morin, Michielverbeek, Charlesjsharp, and Aristeas: . Thanks. Convenience links: original, new. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me too. --A.Savin 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A modest improvement in my point of view -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably a bit better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ermell (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good quality but a bit overexposed. --Mile (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support May be the midtones are too bright. --XRay 💬 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support per Mile, I'm not sure I find the composition especially outstanding either, but I appreciate the care taken with all the image notes. Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately our state reptile, the snapper, is not represented (but to be fair, I've only ever come across them in the wild on land, some distance from water, and almost always on Long Island well east of Brooklyn). Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the only times I've seen them in the water was also when I learned something horrible: they eat baby waterfowl. I saw one stalking some goslings in Green-Wood Cemetery last year, and heard from others there that it was likely to blame for three of the goslings going missing in the preceding days. Other than that, yeah, only on land. Intimidating creatures. I presume the reason they're our state reptile is because New Yorkers are prone to snap at people (for walking too slow, driving poorly, eating the wrong kind of pizza, existing at all, etc. :) ) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going by such standards, it says something about us living here in Lysekil since our county animal is the harbor seal. :-) --Cart (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, as a New Yorker, I laughed at your reasoning for the choice of state reptile. :-) What is it about harbor seals, though, Cart? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, chubby mischievous non-conformists. :) --Cart (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought it was out of some desire to highlight conservation efforts ... and per the article (and I would daresay my own experience) snapping turtles are actually not very aggressive animals; they will make use of their snapping capability largely only to defend themselves. I think some other states have designated the snapper one of their state animals as well.

I mean, look at some of our other state animals. Nobody would think of a bluebird as some sort of aggressive beast. Or a brook trout. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My uncle Joey got jumped by a brook trout down an alley in Alphabet City in the 80s. Couple of bluebirds flew up afterwards and stole his wallet. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Emydidae_(Pond_Turtles)

File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum) 26-01-2021. (actm.) 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2021 at 04:32:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info Hippeastrum The delicate beauty of the flower. With an advanced flower bud above it. Focus stack of 14 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness and light well done --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, look at those anthers! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas.Ermell (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question ~~What are thoose green and red dots in the back.~~ --Mile (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice compo and back. --Mile (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC) p.S. Do pixel mapping,maybe can help[reply]

Done. Dots removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are still some green dots that should be removed --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dots removed. Sorry, first time not quite gone well. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still some --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support fine now --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support very classy — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae

File:Frosted Footprints.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2021 at 16:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
Info created by Angry Red Hammer Guy - uploaded by Angry Red Hammer Guy - nominated by Angry Red Hammer Guy -- — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 16:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 16:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding that the hay and mud in the lower right corner is harming my experience of the form. I'll suggest a crop for your consideration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point in that the lower right corner almost doesn't fit, and I would be interested in hearing how you would recommend cropping the photo. However, I also feel that the mud and dry grass lend a sort of rural feel to the image, and this combined with the obvious coldness of the ice seems to fit with a general description of Alberta, which could be, "sparsely populated and cold." Also, I think the brown and tan colors balance out the white nicely. Thanks, — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 04:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I just realized that you annotated the photo with your suggestion. Thank you, I will consider it. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 04:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Upon further consideration I have decided not to crop the photo, even if this risks including too much mud. This is because the suggested crop, while removing a fair amount of dirt, would also remove one of the footprints. This would leave only two footprints in the photo, and it seems to me like three footprints is much better at conveying movement than two footprints (because a set of two footprints can be left by someone standing still after arriving there, but to leave three footprints requires at least one step of continued forward movement). That's the way I see it, but I am very interested in hearing more opinions about this. Thanks. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose sorry, but its just a lot of mud --Andrei (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Oppose per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrei. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Val Lietres - Drei Könige Gherdeina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2021 at 16:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately some frames are blurred. Ermell (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry wrong image.Ermell (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wow-ed, just ordinary view in mountains --Grtek (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't sure about this at first but it has grown on me. I really like the interplay of light and shadows. Cmao20 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. Also a nice symmetry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, great shadow on the right side of image. -- Karelj (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose The shadow, plus it could be a little sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Co mmon ists 09:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock puppet of Livioandronico2013. In this discussion, it has been decided to strike out all his votes. --Aristeas (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Updated results:

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Val Lietres y Col dala Pieres sëura Pra da Ri te Gherdëina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2021 at 17:02:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately some frames are blurred.Ermell (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. It's strange for the nearest foreground to be sharp, the slightly further foreground blurry, and then for it to become sharp again further away. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral focus issues are a shame because compo is really awesome. Buidhe (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lupe (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell and Ikan, also dull light for a great scene. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isla de mouro, Waves.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2021 at 20:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Spain
Info created by hagemannandreas, Flickr - uploaded by Wikimandia - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question downsized? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small for a seascape to pass FPC in 2021, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, please fix size if possible. --Andrei (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very small for FP these days but still nice, I'm honestly unsure. Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If this was downsampled, let's see the larger image. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: , it's from Flickr. That's the size that was uploaded there. Tomer T (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:The village of Bubiòn viewed from Plaza Vieja in Capileira (DSCF5824).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2021 at 19:33:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Andalusia
Info A stormy and painterly Spanish landscape. created by Trougnouf - uploaded by Trougnouf - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the light highlights the stringy clouds -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool and unusual. I like the clouds. Buidhe (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --Trougnouf (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complicated composition that rewards those who take the time to move their eyes over it repeatedly and understand it. Much more than an average shot of a mountainous landscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. -- Karelj (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and just moderate wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is dark for sure but in my opinion it is not too dark. There is plenty of detail still visible in the shadows, and had the exposure stop been any higher you would have risked blowing out those wonderful wispy clouds which are in my view part of what makes the photo special. But of course these thing are subjective :) Cmao20 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The dark parts make it dramatic. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Papierflieger -- 2021 -- 7215 (bw, high key).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2021 at 04:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Models
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 04:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photograph is black-and-white using high-key lightning. --XRay 💬 04:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 04:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose File:Papierflieger -- 2021 -- 7215.jpg is better for most uses IMO as you can actually see the edge of the airplane. Buidhe (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking for a long time about which picture I think is better. To be honest, I was very hesitant, but then decided on the nominated variant. --XRay 💬 09:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Buidhe. I think that version is much better to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I would also support the other version, but the paper wings in this one seems less wrinkled. There's also a minimalist aspect I appreciate in this fully white version, it is like a game of shadows: the subject is distinguishable just because of its outlines and that's more artistic in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both images are based on the same RAW file. And in relation to any wrinkles: it is a hand-folded paper airplane. --XRay 💬 11:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine. Though the most aerodynamic design I know is slightly different :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the plane based on its appearance - regardless of its flight characteristics. It should also be foldable as little as possible. (And also a picture before (!) the first flight. ;-) ) --XRay 💬 11:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. A bit like a concorde, then :-) It would work well for an advertisement by a postal service company :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Changing my vote due to personal attacks sent by W.carter below -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are angry at me, why do you take it out on XRay? He has done nothing to you. --Cart (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

⛔️ -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of this nomination won't be fair. I recommend a renomination under more favorable conditions -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Buidhe, would support the other version. --Ivar (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have absolutely no idea why one would support the other version at FP level. By all means support that one for a VI of a paper aeroplane if that is the only purpose of the photo. But that one is just a photo of a paper aeroplane on some cream coloured card. The creases and imperfections are all too obvious. Whereas this BW version concentrates the eye on the shades and makes the mind work harder to see the shape. The contrast between the hard paper edge and the soft shadow edge is solely due to changes in grey and no coloured background adds complexity to that here. I like that the far tip is nearly indistinguishable from the background. Indeed having features of one object merge into obscurity with another (white for high key, black for low key) is a feature of high/low key photography. This should be featured as a high-key photo of a paper sculpture and I think it is a good example of that. Anyone can take a documentary photo of a paper aeroplane. -- Colin (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what a pity that an approach that so skillfully follows the footsteps of Neue Sachlichkeit photography (for some examples see here) draws that much criticism. This photographic tradition has been around for about 100 years now! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 This is photographic art, the other is not. --Cart (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The FPC instructions state:
Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable.

So IMO if there is a conflict one should always prefer the version that is more encyclopedically valuable over the one that is more aesthetically pleasing. Buidhe (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, that's not my interpretation at all. The point is, in huge categories (sunsets) in which most photos are beautiful, we look for unusually special or useful photos. In this case, the photo that's more unusual is the high-key version that's nominated. I oppose it and support the other one because the contrast makes for a better composition to my eyes and mind, but your own argument works against you. This isn't a VIC nomination of the most valuable paper airplane photo on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it valuable for a high-key photograph? --XRay 💬 07:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, using the word "encyclopedic" on Commons FP is a bit like swearing. This is an educational media repository, not just a source of images to illustrate encyclopaedia articles. The difference is felt to be important by many here. This image is "in some way special" whereas a standard photo of a paper aeroplane is a bit mundane, albeit technically fine. IMO a more encyclopedic photo would either include some small person's hands folding the sheets over or include a hand holding the plane for take-off. That would represent the personally-made and then played-with aspect of the plane which sets it apart from many toys. Most photographers here are capable of sitting an object on a piece of paper and taking a photo of it with an expensive camera. At FP, I hope we are selecting only the "finest", and something "in some way special". -- Colin (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose white on white --Lupe (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. It's high-key. --XRay 💬 04:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe, this is the point where I plug Light — Science & Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting. It is a professional textbook, so quite expensive, though you may be able to get older editions second hand. It has specific coverage of "white on white" as a tricky photographic/lighting situation (and "black on black", of course). Sure, the photo with a cream background is better for a Wikipedia article on paper planes. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support per Colin and oppose the version with the cream background. 'White on white' is the whole point. It's high-key photographic art rather than just a boring picture of a paper aeroplane. The cream background version loses everything that makes it special. Cmao20 (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one per Colin/Basile. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess it is supposed to be ~~grainy~~ made with rough paper, but it doesn't appeal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: Grainy? It's both paper and paper is rough. I don't think it's grainy. --XRay 💬 04:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

corrected, thanks, I've altered my comment. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Colin --StellarHalo (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this version per Basile, Colin and Cmao20. (File:Papierflieger -- 2021 -- 7215.jpg is IMHO a very good VI candidate.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Idea is good, but tigth crop on left. --Mile (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sometimes it is really hard to follow the reasons for the cons. In all honesty: I don't really understand some of the arguments. I would like to understand them. However, it is already clear to me that images that are not within the usual framework can certainly lead to controversy. --XRay 💬 08:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't over-think the votes -- you'll spend more time wondering about them than the voters did when making them. Anyone can comment here regardless of experience, of photographic ability, of artistic sensibility, or of ability to coherently express their thoughts. And they may do so perhaps after mere seconds of consideration. Best I think to view FPC as a spin of the roulette wheel and not to be discouraged. Of those voting who are photographers, then their portfolio can be a guide as to whether they are speaking from any kind of personal foundation, or are just an opinion on the internet. I have not generally found it useful at FPC to dig far into why someone opposed an image, because human behaviour tends then to just post-rationalise the choice they already made. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sad but true ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Colin about this gambling den called FPC. But I also think XRay has a point since the rules say that an 'oppose' should be accompanied by a real explanation, and that should be more than a few words or an empty phrase. (See COM:FPC#Voting) Worst of all are the "nothing of interest" or "per others" that are being spread by a clan of habitual opposers. They are used as get-out-of-jail-free-cards instead of putting some time or effort into the vote/review, proxies for the prohibited phrase "I don't like it". I know I can't change this, just needed to vent --Cart (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

per others

per other

per above...

There were 202 "per" last month (archives), given by 33 different revievers (oppose votes): Karelj, Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Daniel Case, Kruusamägi, Kallerna, Milseburg, Basile Morin, Aristeas, Rhododendrites, A.Savin, Ivar, Ermell, Commonists, Trougnouf, Peulle, RolfHill, Gnosis, Uoaei1, Colin, Draceane, IamMM, Cayambe, Fischer.H, El Grafo, SM:!), Basotxerri, Seven Pandas, StellarHalo, Michielverbeek, Buidhe, Vulphere, Llez -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally mind "per" if someone has already actually articulated what you would like to say. The interesting phenomenon is how the existence of an oppose seems to make others more likely to oppose (many don't want to be the first to oppose). I've never particularly liked "nothing of interest." I chalk it up to translation of "wow," which is a completely subjective measure which we do nonetheless require consideration of. Still, "nothing of interest" (or "nothing special") reframes "it does not wow me" as though the image is inherently unimpressive. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment by Cart was more aimed at those who regularly vote "per" rather than articulate their reasons, vs those who may occasionally vote "per" because someone else has already said all they want to say. Yes, Rhododendrites, there is a herd mentality where unbroken support encourages further support, and I'd say a good percentage of reviewers never "first oppose" vote. The FPC system only functions because of those who are strong enough to make the first oppose. Without them, it is just a popularity contest. The subsequent "per" votes are somewhat freeriding on the bravery of the original opposer, and whose second-hand opinion is less likely to be challenged. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Colin got my intention right. Basile is as usual raking through the mud of the past to find things to hurl back at me instead of adding input to the discussion. It is the lemming mentality or hiding behind "template phrases" that is so frustrating. It does not advance the project with greater understanding about photos and images if we don't articulate our thoughts about them. I don't think anyone can accuse me of not speaking my mind, and doing so often. In fact, I have sometimes gone with the "per" voting to not always stand out. (I'm human, so sue me.) On the whole, I wish more people would follow the intention of the FPC rules to learn from 'opposes' rather than to just be downcast by them, or learn bad habits. --Cart (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks ("lemming mentality", "raking the mud", etc.) -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, Basile, I'm not attacking you in any way. "raking through the mud of the past" is an expression, meaning that you go searching for old stuff like you did in your previous post. The "lemming mentality etc" is not directed at you, you are certainly not a lemming, but the general behavior of FPC voters we were discussing. Colin calls it "herd mentality", same thing, I just didn't want to repeat his phrase. --Cart (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- Basile Morin (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support To me this is the superior version. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Yes, this is artier and more arresting, but when you scroll by it quickly you'd think it was some sort of corporate logo. Which may have been the point. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No idea why this shall be a FP.--Ermell (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for all the good reasons stated above ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umnak oli 2014123 lrg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2021 at 23:29:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#North America
Info Rare cloud-free (mostly) view of Umnak Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. You can see the caldera of Mount Okmok on the upper part of the island with Mount Vsevidof and Mount Recheshnoi in the lower part. created by NASA - uploaded by Matthiasb - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vincent - St. Paul's from the Surrey Side of Blackfriars Bridge, figures and sailing barges in the foreground.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2021 at 22:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Frescos
Info created by George Vincent- uploaded by Amitchell125 - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would be a very good VIC nomination, but it's probably too small for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear if Amitchell took the photograph. If not, the frame would probably be copyrighted and needs to be cropped out. Buidhe (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why the frames may be copyrighted, nothing special on it Ezarateesteban 20:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frames are 3-dimensional and therefore not covered by COM:PD-Art. See the section "When should the PD-Art tag not be used?" Buidhe (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I disagree that it's too small. Of course we have had much larger, but I am willing to accept this. With the frame excluded it's ~7.2megapixels of content, which is OK for me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I think it's probably too small for FP is that we've had so many nominations of photos of framed paintings at humongous resolutions. I think it's very fair to compare the quality of photos in the same category when considering FPC nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 2 pixels per millimeter in length or 2,500 pixels per square inch, which seems OK to me. A larger painting would need more pixels. Buidhe (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree, but that's OK. I did take the size of the painting into account, of course. It's on the larger side, not huge, but certainly not small. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Café No.123 on Frederiksberg, Denmark - edited.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2021 at 08:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Denmark
Info created by Kristoffer Trolle - uploaded and nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice downplayed street photography. I love the little warm calm glowing oasis of the café, contrasted by dark buildings and speed-blurred people and cars. -- Cart (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An ordinary corner of any city,sorry --Co mmon ists 09:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. In this discussion, it has been decided to strike out all his votes. --Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even ordinary places can be photographed in a great way, that is the real challenge. ;-) --Cart (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right W.carter but it isn't an example Ezarateesteban 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but I'd love to hear out what makes it great to you and consider it, Cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ikan, adding to my initial comment on this nom, here goes. I'm always attracted to photos with special light, light setting the mood in a photo. Many of the street photos we see here are a cacophony of light and colors from shops and signs, this is the opposite. I love this simple little solitary café glowing warm in an otherwise cold and dark setting with no other shops. The shop across the street has folded and has a "Til Leje" (to let) sign in the window. It's like a magical portal to another better time/world on an otherwise normal dreary November evening. Perhaps [my description is] more mood/poetry/artsy-fartsy than FPC can stand, but anyway. --Cart (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will consider this and look again tomorrow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question If it's "artsy-fartsy", why changing the composition of the author/"artist"? There was a section with blue sky at blue hour on the original that has totally disappeared. Such a modification alters the "mood" IMO because blue sky is like a window in a photo, and this window says a lot about the ambiance -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at the history. I prefer the uncropped version, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, communication error, now clarified. I meant that my comment was "mood/poetry/artsy-fartsy", not the photo itself, I was writing too fast. The photo is more straightforward. The reason I cropped it in editing is that the original seemed a tad unbalanced to me with two major brighter areas competing for the viewers attention. The editing is why it's a separate file and nt just an overwrite. The original is also displayed in the file's description box for comparison. --Cart (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral In my opinion, it is a challenge to stage common events and to take good photos. It takes time and creativity. But some creative implementation may be out of the way here at FP and is therefore quickly - too quickly - rated negative. The picture here is a good idea, but the lights of the cars (especially the brake light) and the cut off foreground bothers me. A moment later and a slightly different angle would have been better. --XRay 💬 06:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What to focus on ? f/2 on coffee, in the middle, i thought its Carts F1000 ? Somehow try of Hoppers Nigthawks. --Mile (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Street photography in evening/night is usually grainy with low f-number and high ISO since it's mostly handheld and spontaneous. In this case, the large file size makes up for it. --Cart (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground is obstructing. There's a bicycle behind, table and chairs, totally hidden.

The red light of the neon sign "KAFFE" is OK, but not the red light of the car (distracting).

Looking at the portfolio of this photographer, the pictures really don't seem wonderful to me. Cut off feet all the time and distracting foregrounds, often. I understand this nomination wants to be innovative, showing "street photography" at FPC, but due to drawbacks mentioned above, there's nothing in this picture to make me think it's special in any way -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Cart but I agree with the above, there's nothing exactly 'wrong' with it but it's just a bit dull. There are a lot of elements in the composition that don't add up to a harmonious whole, e.g. the cut-off flowerpots in the foreground. Cmao20 (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Okay then, lets put this one to rest. Thanks for the comments. --Cart (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desserts and Wine.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2021 at 07:25:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Meals (food and drink)
Info created & uploaded by User:FranHogan - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've nominated this because it's a sharp and delicious-looking photo of cheesecake with two glasses of wine in pleasant surroundings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tweaked the categories and description for more specificity but left the filename alone. Let me know if it should also be made more specific, such as "Two slices of cheesecake and wine". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked. Lovely photo! --Cart (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment and the help! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting,nice composition --Co mmon ists 09:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cheescake and wine? not for me. The cutlery is annoying. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Cheesecake, wine and black sweater? :-) Basile Morin (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought in the beginning this is a sweater. But then I thought - maybe this is a napkin? Tomer T (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not folded? Strange it seems already used, while the food is intact in the plate. Looks more like a piece of cloth, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are on the dessert, you have probably used your napkin during the first part of your meal. A piece of cloth (napkin, towel, etc) is a common component in modern food photography, usually placed to enhanced the curve of a plate. Here it is used to break the white on white of the plate/tablecloth and show off the corner of the plate and eliminate what would otherwise be just a white area, leaving the compo unbalanced. Anyone here is welcome to picture-Google "food photography" and see what it's all about. --Cart (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A dirty towel to make the meal more appetizing? Not coherent with the little delicate flowers 🌸🐷 :-)

And why no space around? The cluttered composition doesn't breathe in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a beautiful dish and well presented, but the photo I think was taken lightly and with a very closed composition without enough space, cut utensil, black sweater and distracting background --Wilfredor (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for posting a clear and well-considered review. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll give this maybe 24 hours to see if anyone else really likes this photo, but win or lose, I'd like people here to consider the implications of why it's so much harder to feature a plated food photo than a photo of a building facade or view of mountains. We've seen imperfect mountain view photos featured, and a photo that includes part of a building and water with an interesting composition that's too fuzzy for me to vote for is well on its way to a feature right now. It seems like plated food has to meet a much higher standard to be passed here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture itself is nice, but as per Charles and Basile. -- -donald- (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything is so coquettishly arranged on the plate, with flowers and ice sugar, I wonder why a piece of cloth, unappetizing as possible, has been placed on this table 😳.

According to the archives, there have been 3 FP of food promoted since the beginning of this month, that's not too bad, and in any case much better than other categories like Astronomy (1), Historical (0), Natural phenomena (1), Other lifeforms (0), People (1) or Portrait (0), Fungi (0), Space exploration (0), Sports (0), etc.

There are not so many food pictures nominated at QIC either. But at FPC, the ratio of success / failure is much tighter (around 50%, all categories). Some of my candidatures passed here in the past, some others failed, and a few ones were promoted on Wikipedia English but revoked on Commons! :-) That's the challenge! Beautiful plate, but I agree with others: the crop is too tight (top and bottom), the left side cut, and the accidental sweater most embarrassing. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call what we have been featuring here lately "food photography", they are simply sorted in the food category. They are focus stacked food components treated as specimens. I know that Basile has made some very good attempts (better than anyone else here of the FPC regulars) at more real food photography before, and I'd love to see that more developed. --Cart (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piece of chocolate cake on a white plate decorated with chocolate sauce.jpg was uploaded last week, and I would support it if nominated here. There are more available outside of Commons, that can be imported by anybody. But like many other users here, food photography is not my specialty. Still, I feel able to appreciate, or not. Next time, maybe -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find, thanks for uploading it. I have a vacant slot and I'l be happy to use it. --Cart (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- Basile Morin (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for street photography, another underrepresented genre here. File:Café No.123 on Frederiksberg, Denmark.jpg popped up in my Flickr feed. That's how I found it and uploaded it here. --Cart (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Despite the mentioned shortcomings IMHO a good example of ‘casual’ food photography. I don’t like the black piece of cloth and the cropped cutlery, too, but maybe this is intentional, it gives the photo a ‘real live’ touch. When my parents did food photography for some customers (who wanted to sell their china, kitchenware and accessories, therefore we had to take appetizing photos), we sometimes faced the problem that the well-arranged table and dishes looked a little bit clean. Adding some random everyday accessory or placing the cutlery in a careless manner can help in that situation ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should have shallow DOF. --Mile (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination There's no point in continuing this nomination, but I think Basile's remark about the rate at which "food photos" pass FPC deserves a reply. Unless I'm misreading things, there is a grand total of 3 FPs in the "Meals (food and drink)" category, and if you scroll up at that link, a grand total of 5 desserts ("sweet food"). If you scroll up further, you can see 3 composed plates of savory food (4 if you count "birds on stick") and one Big Mac hamburger that's not shown on a plate. By contrast, look at this page of doors, ceilings and other architectural elements, to give one illustrative example for the sake of contrast. That other categories are underrepresented is not a good thing or a good argument for the idea that photos of composed plates of food don't have a very, very hard time passing FPC. I'm not suggesting that the arguments against this nomination were invalid, but I do observe as a general case that there's a demonstrated bias against photos of composed food on this page, as compared to a number of other categories. Folks here prefer architecture and landscapes, and while I love them, too, I think it's a problem for things to be so lopsided in favor of x, y and z categories here and against a, b and c categories. I'll add that I will continue to nominate food photos that seem great to me, and it's OK with me if they're taken apart again, but I think we should look for great photos in underrepresented categories that might pass here. Thanks for your comments; I do accept them all as sincere and clearly expressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! --Cart (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion to be pursued somewhere else, certainly -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chacma baboon (Papio ursinus griseipes) male baby 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2021 at 12:04:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)
Info Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment excellent quality and great pose - but I'd like to see either more of mommy or less of mommy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can't have more of mummy, only less. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less would be a good idea in my opinion --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good composition, but maybe crop a little bit of the top --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The framing is too large IMO. See note for suggested crop~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That suggested crop looks good to me, for what it's worth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral better, but the branch is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New cropped version uploaded, thanks for the suggestions Martin Falbisoner, Clément Bardot, Michielverbeek, Basile Morin, Ikan Kekek. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I am ok with the changes; The composition is a little bit disturbing for me but the quality is great --Clément Bardot (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)

File:Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2021 at 11:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Dicaeidae (Flowerpeckers)
Info One of the smallest birds living in the Indian subcontinent. It breeds at 1830-2700m above sea level. No FPs of this bird family. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parc de la Chute-Montmorency 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2021 at 06:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
Info The picture is not in B&W. All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. Buidhe (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Amazing size but a little low on 'wow' to me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Cmao20. Also, I remember visiting in summer 2019 and those stairs already felt treacherous, hopefully no one is using them in winter! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falling in winter is very common in these places and technically we are not in winter but today it also snowed --Wilfredor (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support primarily for the great details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great detail, stair could be distracting but isn't so much due to its lines, and we really don't have a lot of winter-waterfall (I know, I know, it's not really winter) images. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Variegated Fairy-wren - Kurnell.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2021 at 05:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Maluridae
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good as usual (probably one of the better ones, in fact), and a striking move with its tail feathers. I don't think I've ever seen a bird do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Eurasian wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) does the same. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but maybe a tighter crop would be better. Buidhe (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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