Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2019

File:Boulders Beach 2019 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2019 at 17:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about the larger version from March 29th? (see former versions) --Milseburg (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info It's a raw file from the camera. Small adjustments done to this version. —kallerna (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Fascinating place but I find the framing a little bit random in terms of how it cuts off some of the penguins at the edges. It's a difficult one to know how to get right, but I think a wider framing might have been a bit better Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20: The wider shot you may be looking for is this FP by Poco, and there's also this nice narrow but long shot, although that one wouldn't make it if nominated today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be honest, IMO that view is rather dull. The beach is almost empty, and the view is mostly just sky and empty beach. Also the light is better in this one. —kallerna (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It would be boring if we always agreed. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support, but, it seems like a lot of detail is lost in the shadows. Could be brought up a bit? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adjustments done. —kallerna (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poco's panorama was better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a good general shot, but the composition is not FP for me. --Domob (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Hohenwerfen, Werfen, Austria, 2019-05-17, DD 143-149 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2019 at 20:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
Info Courtyard and surroundings of castle Hohenwerfen, Werfen, near Salzburg, Austria. The medieval rock castle, situated on a 623 metres (2,044 ft) precipice overlooking the town of Werfen in the Salzach valley. The fortress is a "sister" of Hohensalzburg Fortress, both built by the Archbishops of Salzburg in the 11th century. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too keen on the bending, and not sure about the composition. - Benh (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice place and view but the sunny parts are overexposed I’m afraid. --Kreuz schnabel 06:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kreuzschnabel according to Lr there was no detail loss due to overexposure. Anyhow, I've reduced the highlights of the sunny areas Poco a poco (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. -- -donald- (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and extraordinary resolution. Slight perspective bending is OK for me; however, I do agree with Kreuzschnabel that the highlights could do with being dialled back a bit. Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, lack of wow for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Tennengebirge make the composition special. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice wide-angle view of the castle and mountains. --Domob (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hohe Tauern von Nordwest.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 14:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info Glocknergroup and Venedigergroup in the High Tauern, Austria, seen from northwest. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice landscape and good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and composition. It looks like you had a good hike up there! --Podzemnik (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La pirogue à balancier.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2019 at 13:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Sailboats
InfoThe canoe is an integral part of Polynesian life. It is used as means of transport between villages or houses and in sports activities on the water. Created by Brigittebourger - uploaded by Brigittebourger - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahhhhh... --Cart (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Through the entire right half of the water surface, there’s sharply depicted ripples alternating with complete blurry areas. Where does that come from? It looks a bit unrealistic. --Kreuzschnabel 14:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can not answer that since I'm not the author --Andrei (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks perfectly ok to me. In many spots the color of the light reflected on the waves is the same as the color of the reflected clouds so the patches become almost uniform in color and some may see that as 'blurry' in a photo. Light on waves can make very strange patterns sometimes. --Cart (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too much not very interesting sky and water and not enough canoe. Also, the message about canoes being integral to Polynesian life is undercut by the "RAINA TOURS [phone number]" text on the front canoe, and a closeup would make the photo even more of an advertisement. I recognize that some people consider this kind of image highly artistic, but it's not that interesting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Poco a poco (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great. Yes, a bit unusual for what we're used to see here but that's makes it special. I can imagine the photo to be in an exhibition hall as an example of minimalist photography. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terrible quality, but I do see myself hanging this at home. Beautiful minimalism. - Benh (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Benh and Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Colin (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful composition. IMO there are JPEG artifacts. So please upload an uncompressed image. --XRay ^talk 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not sharp at full size, but per Podzemnik and Benh. One of mine, similar to this, failed last August, but I like this kind. Space evokes me freedom and tranquility -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted for that photo. It has a much better composition than this one, in my opinion: Because of all the individual trees and reflections thereof, it is not static like this one, even though it's certainly a peaceful image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I remember. Here the perfectly flat water, mirroring, with the pastel colors and the desert horizon, strike me. Feeling of quietness through this simple composition - Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose heavy compression and composition is weak. --Ivar (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beauty in its simplicity. I echo Cart's "Ahhhhh..." ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Weak support Great minimalism, gives me a sigh of relief, but quality is not as good, and (as Ikan noted) the advertising on the canoe is irritating. --Aristeas (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it’s nice, but image quality is below FP threshold IMHO. Puzzling rendering of water surface as mentioned by me above, and the only thing within the frame is unsharp (motion blur). --Kreuz schnabel 20:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first sight o.k. but at a closer look the quality is missing.--Ermell (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ermell −-Llez (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely minimal painterly qualities here. a good example of how looking at things at 100% resolution sometimes misses the bigger picture (hashtag #idiomsinnaturalcontext). It's full of technical issues and not so exciting when zoomed in, but the full composition is good enough to overcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. It would make a great album or book cover ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A more traditional and/or "pure" canoe and sharper image would certainly be nicer, but I like the composition a lot. --Domob (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Sailboats

File:Raorchestes parvulus (male).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 21:10:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Rhacophoridae (Shrub Frogs)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high resolution. Pop! -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This frog is 23 mm long or less. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, and surprisingly sharp for f/25 --El Grafo (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not bad. But I don't like and don't understand as well the shallow DOF combined with f/25. Also the dark (noisy) background is nothing what I like. On the other hand I think it is a difficult shot. Therefore I don't want to give an oppose. --Hockei (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can help a bit with the understanding part: f/25 was necessary to get this depth of field, otherwise it would have been even shallower. Getting sufficient DoF is a real challenge at macro distance, which is why so many macro shots are being focus-stacked rather than single shots. But focus stacking is not an option for non-static subjects like this. --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support How interesting - made me curious enough to look up what the bubble-shaped thing is (it's the frog's vocal sac, if anyone is wondering). Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Town hall of Alsfeld (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 17:11:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the left crop. The light on the facade is nice but I find the lightning coming from the Kartoffelsack annoying.--Dinkum (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah. In this case, I'd like the photo better if you cropped part of that building. I can't say I'd necessarily vote to feature, though; I'd have to see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good quality shot and interesting architecture. Cmao20 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The light is lovely, but the cropped building on the left spoils it for me. --Domob (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, bad crop. Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:OLD JAFFA PORT.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 14:23:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes #Israel
Info created & uploaded by Noam.armonn - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting shot under unusual lighting, which almost persuaded me to support; but I don't really see much in the way of a composition, and also it's leaning in at both sides (needs a perspective correction). Cmao20 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong sky noise, vertical distortion, unnatural colors, foreground shadow distracting, gray aberration in the ocean color, everything fixable IMHO --Wilfredor (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's definitely a composition, what with the strong arc of clouds. However, the sky and clouds definitely look too dark blue/purplish. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The sky is noisy and I find the shadows in the water at the bottom a bit disturbing, but overall it is an impressive picture to me. --Domob (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the white balance is correct. Too cold in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Étang de Leucate[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 10:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Étang de Salses-Leucate, Occitanie, France, View from East
Étang de Salses-Leucate, Occitanie, France, View from West

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Aude
Info I don't know if we had already a nomination of panoramas of the same locality, but from opposite points. I think this is interesting for you get different impressions of the same landscape (see annotations in the panoramas); created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a fine idea, and I can't see anything in the execution that lets it down. The second one is my favourite because I prefer the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding idea to provide a complete overview. --Milseburg (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the long aspect ratios. and I'm not sure what making them a set adds here. - Benh (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. Also a lot of "nothing" in the pictures. —kallerna (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh and Kallerna. Also the water in the second picture is noisy. --Hockei (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh and Kallerna -- Karelj (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protaetia cuprea - 2019 Zachi Evenor.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2019 at 14:51:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Zachi Evenor - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 14:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 14:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The frame is just disturbing --Andrei (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough resolution and no obvious mitigating reasons. Please check the guidelines. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, but also note Andrei's point that images nominated at FPC shouldn't have frames attached to them, the black line round the edge is pretty distracting and we would prefer on Commons to have images without frames, watermarks etc. All this said it's actually a good shot and detailed on the bug itself. It can sometimes seem a bit unfair to have so high a megapixel threshold for images of very small objects or creatures, seeing that in a small image there's actually quite a lot of detail, as in this example. But unfortunately rules are rules, and 2mpx is the minimum. Cmao20 (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too far below the 2 Mpx minimum for this kind of photo. As suggested, please read the guidelines. --Cart (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling of Chehel Sotoun.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 07:55:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not perfect but surely has wow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that it is somewhat arbitrary for a "looking straight up" photo, but I find the image easier to comprehend when vertically flipped (as though one was facing the wall, looking up). Please can you use more specific category (e.g. Category:Chehel Sotoun Throne Room). When I compare with File:Chehel Sotoun چهل ستون اصفهان- ایران 01.jpg I wonder if that photo is reflecting a blue sky whereas yours reflects a white overcast sky? The blue reflection is prettier against the gold. -- Colin (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: the ceiling metals in both pictures are blue. but the reflection color in mirrors are different because sometime sky is blue, without any clouds and sometime is white because clouds.--Amirpashaei (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Colin: , @Ermell: , @Ikan Kekek: , @XRay: , I rotated picture and adjusted the light specially to the brighter sections. tell me that's better or not. thanks --Amirpashaei (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it strange to have the wall that seems less sharp on the "near" side (lower part of the picture frame), so I disapprove of the flip, by comparison with having left it the way it was, but I don't therefore cancel my supporting vote for the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: thanks for your support .I think in this position mind can better understand the texture and depth of ceiling.--Amirpashaei (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find the issue Ikan mentions -- the near wall is closer so naturally will be less in focus than the ceiling, but it is still sharp enough. We often see this effect in the corners of images of a ceiling, but in this case, there is a wall on one side and open space on the other. I would have preferred a nicer colour reflection in this mirrors from a blue sky, but this is still very good. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! but this is not ceiling, it is called Muqarnas. --Gnosis (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gnosis: Thank you for reminding gnosis. you're right. in persian we called Muqarnas too. but I didn't think there was same word in English.--Amirpashaei (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirpashaei: You're welcome, you can see English Wikipedia for Muqarnas. Cheers. --Gnosis (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New Zealand bush during the rain, Mt Oxford area, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2019 at 05:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's a New Zealand bush in the rain. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is way more interesting than your other nomination but the rain idea is somewhat not in the pic itself, just in the description. I’d like to see some raindrops falling or something like that. --Kreuz schnabel 06:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I can try next time to get closer to the bushes. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Very nice. But I am missing something like the ground at the bottom. -- -donald- (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to look from a higher point so it provides a bit of an interesting angle. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but I don't see the big wow factor. Perhaps someone who doesn't see woods like this one every day will be more excited.--Peulle (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's actually beech forest, native forest to New Zealand and these trees don't grow anywhere else in the world than here. So yes, "only" woods, but New Zealand woods! :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As one who is constantly trying to capture the perfect rain photo, I know how insanely difficult it is to shoot falling rain (it always ends up looking like fog/overcast/mist to viewers). You can't get the drops visible enough if you don't have a counter light, so instead you have to go for the special light and colors that a pouring rain creates. I think this would be much better if you just went with concentrating on the light in part of the forest instead of the whole wet place. I would recommend a square(ish) crop to do this, see note. --Cart (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm could do. Though quite a few users voted to support this crop so I feel like I missed my opportunity to provide an alternative early enough so users can decide before they vote. I think I'll leave it as it is for now. But, as usuall, you inspire me to do a square format for one of my photos that are waiting to get processed. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was a fallback plan in case people were iffy about this photo. Looking forward to the photo you mention. --Cart (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great atmosphere. --Hockei (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Hockei. Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mist -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support −-Llez (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~ R.T.G 05:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry RTG, you can't just 'oppose' a picture, per the rules you have to leave an explanation to why you 'oppose' with your vote. Please add one. --Cart (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no subject. It's just a texture. There is nothing wrong with this image, it just isn't "the finest on Commons". Sorry about that. ~ R.T.G 15:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Could do with a crop, but close enough for a support. --Cart (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very well-done, but as misty forests go this doesn't quite reach my "wow" threshold. I'm also not entirely awayed by the comment that beech only grows wild in this part of New Zealand ... the beech trees I am most familiar with are the dominant species in many of the first-growth slope-hardwood forests of the Catskills where I have hiked a lot, and we have a category of similar images from all over the world. Did you mean this particular beech species, perhaps? Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Yeah that's what I meant. We've got 5 species of beech trees here, all native to New Zealand. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good, but not outstanding. —kallerna (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It would indeed be even nicer with a prominent subject in addition to the moody forest, but even without I like it. --Domob (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peterborough (AU), Port Campbell National Park -- 2019 -- 0863.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 05:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia#Victoria
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The compo! --Podzemnik (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. I think I would remove these small sticks or twigs in the water, though. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It's natural and only very, very small. --XRay ^talk 18:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me OK as is --Isiwal (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support At F22 nothing is sharp anymore, but the water movement can hardly be shown differently without a gray filter. The parts at the beach should remain absolutely.--Ermell (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely composition, well done. Cmao20 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I think you could have shot this at f/16 with better sharpness and no significant loss of DOF, but overall a fine image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit soft, but overall a lot of "wow". --Domob (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Domob et al. --Aristeas (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Princetown (AU), Port Campbell National Park, Twelve Apostles -- 2019 -- 0969.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 05:48:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia#Victoria
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very dynamic. It'll be a shame when these rocks are submerged by ice sheet melt... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall a bit soft, but very lovely light. --Domob (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Now this is surf! Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Woodend Beach, Canterbury, New Zealand (6).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2019 at 05:18:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's Woodend Beach lifgtened with the last bits of sun. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely nice lighting but I can’t see anything outstanding here to feature. Random crop, little wow. --Kreuz schnabel 06:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would also expect a little bit nicer weather. Otherwise nice. -- -donald- (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel.--Peulle (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's simply a beautiful view. --Hockei (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works well to me. Not all FPs have to be under a bright blue sky. Cmao20 (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel -- Karelj (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's one of those pictures you feel part of...and it's technically a + so yes from me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support −-Llez (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Doesn't work for me. It might if the grasses weren't as tall so close to the bottom of the picture frame, but I would have to see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good but I miss something else Poco a poco (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me this is an excellent shot of a beach in winter. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. —kallerna (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and light. --Domob (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Morceaux de granite superposé a à Parakou-Bénin.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2019 at 08:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Adoscam - uploaded by Adoscam - nominated by Adoscam -- Adoscam (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adoscam (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow.--Peulle (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please check the categories at Template:Commons FP galleries carefully when you make the nomination and add it to the space where it says "<add the category here>. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting rock but not the most impressive image of it. A lower viewpoint would have shown the inside of the gap, and add background to show where it actually is. --Kreuz schnabel 11:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel, also the quality is not very high at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per others -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parc national de la Pendjari (Bénin).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2019 at 09:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Fawaz.tairou - uploaded by Fawaz.tairou - nominated by Fawaz.tairou -- Fawaz.tairou (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fawaz.tairou (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try com:QIC instead. There’s nothing really "wrong" with this image, however it’s just a shot of a termite mound like hundreds more; for instance, this one is much more impressive IMHO. Central composition is boring, cut-off tree in background is distracting. No wow. Sorry … --Kreuz schnabel 11:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a quality shot (although quite low resolution), but no wow - per Kreuzschnabel. --Domob (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice termite hill, but I agree with Kreuzschnabel that the one he links is a better composition and this one doesn't have a compelling composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per others. Also only 3.7MP. -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MJK 08425 Mari Natsuki (Berlinale 2018).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 19:45:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 19:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 19:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed FP category for you. Please check the categories at Template:Commons FP galleries carefully when you make the nomination. --Cart (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite soft and (especially) seems nothing "special" to me. So perhaps it is a QI or VI, but not FP for me. --Domob (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stata Center (05689p)2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2019 at 17:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info Stata Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, designed by Frank Gehry. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but the right crop close to the bottom is cut, so for me no FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Michiel makes a good point, but without even considering that, as I said in the nomination of your other photo of this building, this composition doesn't work for me, either, because the building has unbalanced movement, especially to the right. An accurate portrayal of a building that is its own unbalanced composition could be a useful VI, but that doesn't make it an FP to me, unless there's something complementing it in order to produce a composition that satisfies me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I promised I'd vote for it on the nomination of the other photo of the building, so here goes. The criticisms are valid, but I think we should accept that any view of this building necessarily has trade-offs in terms of what is included and excluded in the frame; it's difficult not to have a tight crop somewhere. Overall this is a very good view of the architecture and more aesthetic than the last nom. Cmao20 (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW there is no crop that would make the bottom-right corner visible, as it extends below where I am and is partially obscured by another part of the building (this photo is taken up by the bottom of the yellow seen here, facing the other way, so it goes down further and the rounded chrome part is in the way). The building in general is chaotic, and the back of it even more-so, with multiple levels, parts, styles, etc. with not a great deal of room to take a picture from most angles. Personally, I think the tradeoff works, but I appreciate it may not be for everyone. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me this picture perfectly transports the alien and twisted look, the building was constructed for, the complete negation of the right angle. And being situated narrowly between two completely different buildings underlines the conflict. I think together with the bright metallic brilliance this image represents a typical Gehry construction. --PtrQs (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good and the subject is wowing but I'm not sure whether this was the best angle/crop on both sides Poco a poco (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop. Let the poor thing breathe! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Termitière in a field at the Universitite d'Abomey-Calavi in Benin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 17:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Adoscam - uploaded by Adoscam - nominated by Adoscam -- Adoscam (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adoscam (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very appealing composition for me, harsh light, highlights burnt. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Baso. However, I would say the termite hill itself is quite interesting. I think this photo can be a QI if you can dial back the highlights and produce a believable-looking photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri.--Peulle (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please check the categories at Template:Commons FP galleries carefully when you make the nomination and add it to the space where it says "<add the category here>. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others: while the mound has wow, this image hasn’t. Try more interesting viewpoints next time: lower camera makes the subject look larger and adds surrounding. --Kreuz schnabel 11:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Good illustrative photo but I'd like to see something more interesting compositionaly for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edward S. Curtis, Watching the dancers, Walpi Pueblo, Arizona, 1906.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2019 at 04:09:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Edward S. Curtis - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Noahedits -- Noahedits (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noahedits (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this isn't going to get much support without more context about what it is we're looking at here. The LoC link doesn't seem to have anything else. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also not sure if those are clowds or just folds of the paper. Please clarify. --Andrei (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like the texture of paper is prominent in the photo. The original was probably a glass plate. Anyway, these are four Hopi women in traditional dresses and hairdos (Google "female hopi traditional hairstyle"). Most real Star Wars nerds know that's where princess Leia's "buns" come from. :) Might be why the nominator thought this photo looked special. They are probably watching male dancers during a Hopi event or festival of some sort (yes I'm a big Tony Hillerman fan too). Will add info to the file description. --Cart (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some further digging: The hairstyle is called "squash blossom whorl", and it is the traditional hairstyle for unmarried girls in the Hopi tribe. --Cart (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a great composition and it's sharp and all, ~~but having it from what looks like paper instead of from the original plate is a bit off-putting~~. Moved to regular support, see below. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Ok, I was intrigued so I couldn't let this go and some further searches set things straight. It's not from a glass plate, the original is a Photogravure so the paper structure in this is totally fine. It has a great quality for a 100+-years-old such a medium. Not sure it counts as a normal "photo", perhaps our resident photo historian expert Martin Falbisoner can shed some light on this. Also found some good links about this ( [1] [2] [3] ) and added the info from them to the file description. Also 'ping' Andrew J.Kurbiko and Rhododendrites who might be interested. --Cart (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel flattered :-) There's no reason why this image shouldn't count as a normal photograph. I'm not sure though that the paper structure should be visible the way it is. weak support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak support i am with Cart for now --Andrei (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 10:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:La horde - Surfers riding a wave in Paea, Tahiti.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2019 at 12:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual water sports
Info created and uploaded by Brigittebourger - nominated by W.carter

Another gorgeous photo by Brigitte Bourger. Apparently she made a newbie-mistake and missed uploading it as part of Photographiez les Outre-mer 2019, it was just uploaded the normal way, so it never became part of the contest. Seeing so many surfers simultaneously and near each other on a wave is a rarity, even rarer to have it captured in a good photo. (It kind of makes me think about that moment in Lord of the Ring when the ford at Rivendell turns into horses. ;-) ) -- Cart (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cart (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a good capture. Cmao20 (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. Really good action shot and well composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment horizon tilted. Charles (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure that is the horizon or just the next big wave behind this one before it breaks, so I'd like to keep this as in the original photo. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not the next wave. tilted. Charles (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Especially difficult getting all the surfers in focus.--Peulle (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support (IMO the image is tilted CW. Please have a look to the unsharp horizon. But still FP for me.) --XRay ^talk 05:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I couldn't help but hear this song when I saw this picture. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot capturing different moods in focus.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Individual water sports

File:Mosaïque florale 2019 - 40 ans du musée romain 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2019 at 09:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Switzerland
Info created by Fawaz.tairou - uploaded by Fawaz.tairou - nominated by Fawaz.tairou -- Fawaz.tairou (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fawaz.tairou (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed FP category for you, this is a manmade creation, no 'Natural' creation. Please check the categories at Template:Commons FP galleries carefully when you make the nomination. --Cart (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This composition does not appeal to me. Why portrait orientation? The foreground lawn is uninteresting. A landscape framing with the flowerbed in the right-hand third would show where the background hegde leads to, adding much depth. --Kreuz schnabel 11:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel, the composition is not ideal. Also the flowerbed looks a bit weird at 100%, like over-denoised. But maybe that's because it is made of flowers. --Domob (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment … or because the image is made by smartphone. They are not bad nowadays but hardly ever reach FP quality. --Kreuz schnabel 19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I don't like the light and would like to see individual flowers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting motif but the quality is a long way from FP owing to it being a smartphone shot. Ideally it would be best to shoot something like this from above, but I'm sure that would be hard. Cmao20 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château Frontenac 22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 23:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and thoughtful composition. Not perfect at (very high) full resolution, but fine at lower but still acceptable res. Cmao20 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and useful Ezarateesteban 00:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a really big panoramic overview, and I like that, but the grass in the foreground is pretty noisy. Could you decrease that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to eliminate noise on smooth surfaces but with grass its different and I tried to do it, however, I did not find a noise pattern which means that by applying a general noise reduction without a pattern you will eliminate information from image details. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'll continue to look at this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The composition is interesting, but not enough to make up for the terrible quality. - Benh (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It’s a very nice idea but 1. the quality is not there in spite of large pixel size, you have to downscale to 25 percent (4.3 megapixels) to make it look sharp, at 100 percent it looks hopelessly overprocessed. 2. The lighting does not appeal to me, the (dominating) foreground is too cold and shady. 3. Stitching issues in the sky, there are some vertical dark stripes. As I said, the spot and idea are fine but this image is not favourable. --Kreuz schnabel 08:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kreuz Stitching issues in the sky was an error due to the vignething of each photo. There is no way to remove it completely from the raw file because there is no present for this type of RAW file that allows this to be corrected non-manually. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this is worthy of FP as an example of what a mobile phone (Huawei P30 Pro) can achieve in 2019. The sensor area in this camera is 20x smaller than a FF camera. I assume it is stitched and yes there is a little banding in the sky if you look closely, though we have other FPs with this problem. If I look at this 17.5MP thumb (the largest MediaWiki will generate for me without crashing out of memory) it looks quite acceptable even to pixelpeep: I can count the steps on the scaffolding. This image was in the top 10 of WLM Canada and as Ezarate notes it is certainly more than large enough to be useful. The composition is good and the view interesting. -- Colin (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a phone photo! I didn't notice that. It's certainly the best quality I've ever seen from a phone camera (although that's in large part because it's a stitched image), and it's probably the first time I've voted in favour of a phone photo at FP. But given the high resolution the quality is good enough for me. Cmao20 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad for a cell phone camera but I cannot oversee the resulting quality in comparison to ther candidates here. Only a few areas (mostly in the sun lit area) could be acceptable. I also think that the timing is not good and would have liked to see much more less area of the image in shadow (which would have probably improved the overall image quality) Poco a poco (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco; I also think the composition sabotaged itself by being so ambitious (For one thing, this is more a photo of a Quebec City cityscape dominated by the Frontenac than a photo of the Frontenac. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IMHO the photographs should be evaluated taking into account the limitations of the camera/phone censor with which it was made. I have uploaded the photograph to a maximum resolution, indirectly comments here are forcing me to downsize the image to hide noise problems like others have the usual habit of doing it on FPC with their fullframes cameras. I don't know why we have to compare a photo of a phone with a photo taken by a DSLR camera that also has a downsize applied to it. --Wilfredor (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shark Valley Borrow Pit Vegetation.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2019 at 22:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created & uploaded by Domob - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very good image quality and nice light, but I'm not seeing so much by way of a composition. Cmao20 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This tree doesn't induce any emotion in me, and the composition with the left side doesn't work in my view. In addition, the bark of the foreground is dramatically unsharp (out of focus) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Certainly nice mood and light but I cannot see any clear composition nor subject here. DoF shallow, there’s nothing really sharp but some leaves of the tree and the foreground shrubbery on the bottom right. The overexposed pink clouds don’t help. Sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 07:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nomination, Tomer T! But to be honest, I myself don't really think this one is "special enough" for FP (even though I certainly like it). --Domob (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bahnhof Berlin Alexanderplatz November 2013.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2019 at 08:51:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train stations
Info Berlin Alexanderplatz station. Created, uploaded nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well done, very satisfying composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry I'm just seeing a QI here. Ordinary station photo -- Colin (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, too much shadowed parts --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very solid QI and I do like the composition, but it doesn't impress me quite enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically correct, but this station is not really special in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)n[reply]
Oppose Whenever I have been in Berlin and gone through this station I think of the epic-length Fassbinder film ... however that isn't enough to make this an FP. I think this picture of mine of the similar yet more impressive Milan Stazione Centrale transhed is even better, but I still don't consider that an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others - seems a good enough general shot to me, but just nothing special to make it an FP. --Domob (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chester Cathedral Nave 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2019 at 09:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 09:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this a single photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but IIRC we had a similar problem with an image of yours: there was no dark in it. Compare File:Chester Cathedral Choir, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg and File:Chester Cathedral Rood Screen, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg and even your earlier File:Chester Cathedral Nave.jpg. The stained-glass windows have a strange glowing pastel-colour effect which I recognise as HDR gone wrong. -- Colin (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the composition but the errors with the stained-glass windows are too significant technical flaws for me to overlook, and the HDR seems to have pushed everything to the midtones with no light or dark. Diliff's image is better quality but has a weaker composition. Overall I don't think either quite rise to the level of FP. Cmao20 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support just because we have heaps of cathedral pictures far less good than this one which are FP (well I also like actually) - Benh (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trimeresurus fucatus, Banded pit viper.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2019 at 17:54:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Suborder_:_Serpentes_(Snakes)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work! --Kreuz schnabel 19:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please can you clarify the author for me? The file description says it's you but it also says "Photo by Thai National Parks, https://www.thainationalparks.com/khao-sok-national-park." Where is the photo on the site? Metadata also says it's "Thai National Parks". If the file comes from the website, it should have {{LicenseReview}} tag. Thanks, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boiga jaspidea, Jasper cat snake.jpg --Cart (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cart. I'm still not sure if to credit "Thai National Parks" or Rushenb as the author. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of it can be in the source/author slot. Pretty much like Charles does it (Example), he usually has both name, company name and website in the info box. Now fixed. --Cart (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cart It's clearer now, thanks. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 20:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's indeed an excellent capture. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely work, and very sharp where it counts. Cmao20 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nonetheless, I think you could crop a lot of the dead space at right, some on the left, and some of the blurred tree at the top (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Suborder_:_Serpentes_(Snakes)

File:CapilladeSanJuanBautista-CatedralCABA.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2019 at 00:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint John the Baptist chapel, Metropolitan cathedral of Buenos Aires, Argentina

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 00:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many problems : 1) Too dark, 2) Not horizontal, perspective problems, not shot from the center, 3) Blown highlights, with grey aspect, 4) Furniture cut off at the left, distracting pillar at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yeah, that really is very dark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. For me, mostly the darkness (probably fixable) and the blown highlights (may not be fixable) spoil it. --Domob (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty church but it's all a bit grey, as if the photo has only midtones rather than proper shadows/highlights. Also not shot from the centre. Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: blown highlight, distortion (I'm not sure the altar is supposed to be curved), crops and generally unbalanced feeling. I don't think this is going to get any support !votes at this point; it would be best for the nominator to withdraw it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 00:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.08.26.-02-Mannheim Wallstadt--Gruenes Heupferd-Weibchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2019 at 20:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Tettigoniidae (Katydids or bush crickets (UK))
Info As suggested. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as you say below, the antenna is cut off. Charles (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.08.26.-05-Mannheim Wallstadt--Gruenes Heupferd-Weibchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 18:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Tettigoniidae (Katydids or bush crickets (UK))
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please remove the UFO on the left, unless it’s vital for the image (I guess it isn’t). --Kreuz schnabel 19:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info I don't change the reality principle. Also, it would no longer match with the other images of this series. Nobody must like the picture as it is. --Hockei (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Please add a category for that beautiful plant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Hockei (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Unfortunately in this picture one of the antenna is cut off. --Hockei (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a proper alternative (another processing or crop), it's a totally different photo. It belongs in a new nom. --Cart (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request Really? Don't drive me crazy. It's the same animal. --Hockei (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read Cart's comment as "those two could be promoted at the same time, so each should have its nom". - Benh (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so then I'll give it a chance too. --Hockei (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the 'Alt' option is just for tweaked versions of the same photo. The hardest part about nominating an FPC is usually to select the very best photo in the batch; that is part of the job in nominating. If you are unsure of which of two (or tree) photos to select, ask someone or at COM:CRIT first. I'm not here to give you a hard time, if it was any other way, each nom would pretty soon be 2-3 versions of one scene just because the author couldn't make up their mind. It's the same for everybody. --Cart (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danseuse de debaa à Mayotte_(cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 01:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info Debaa is a traditional dance from Mayotte, reserved exclusively for women. Check out a video to understand what is happening there. Created by Bertrand Fanonnel - uploaded by Andrei Kurbyko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While a useful photo, I don't think it is among our finest. It is unfortunate the main dancer's eyes are closed and the other women are obscured by their hands. Now, if you could get that video on Commons with a free licence... -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't mind the closed eyes, that's just another expression on her face for me (and it works). The hands in front of the others' faces are a bit of a pitty, but overall I like the picture. --Domob (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Andrei (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Lavin door Val Lavinuoz naar Alp dÍmmez (2025m.) 11-09-2019. (actm.) 21.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 05:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info Old small settlement on Alp d'Immez (2025m.) Under the unstable rubble slope of Piz Linard 3412.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good picture, but can you decrease the noise in the sky? Also, I think this is just one dwelling, not a settlement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Noise Reduction Thank you for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the original description and the categories, I've fixed the FP category and file description. English is not Agnes' first language. --Cart (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank u wel voor uw hulp!--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geen problem! --Cart (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that! Thanks for taking care of that, though. I didn't know it was a barn. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't mean it as critiquing you, my apologies if you took it that way, just stating a fact. The photo is in the category "Barns in the canton of Graubünden", that's what tipped me off. --Cart (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Undoubtedly a very good QI, still I miss something special in it to feature I’m afraid. A higher point of view would add some wow. --Kreuz schnabel 10:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I found this lacking in wow, but it grows on you after a while. Cmao20 (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The surroungings are very nice but the building itself is nothing special. It doesn't work for me. --Dinkum (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Quality is good; just missing more wow --GRDN711 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ugly signs, and this angle doesn't work in my view, because the foreground seems intrusive, hiding the main subject. Also per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have no problem with the signs, nor definitely with the vegetation which is growing taller as the years go on. I like the documentary quality of the photo. The composition isn't the easiest to move the eyes around, but I find the relaxing sky set off against the entropic barn and vegetation poetic. My father painted a work called "Still Life with Order and Chaos". This is a landscape with order and chaos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the other opposers - certainly a good picture, but it is nothing too special for me to make it an FP (and the signs indeed spoil it further). --Domob (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely late summer mood ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss something here Poco a poco (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the similar outline of the roof and the mountain --Llez (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That being a sufficient reason to elect a picture into our very best ones earning the highest possible decoration, let me just upload some dozens more pics with similar outlines :) --Kreuz schnabel 14:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Congost de Mont-rebei 095 o.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2019 at 21:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Catalonia
Info created by Jorge Franganillo - uploaded by RTG - nominated by RTG -- ~ R.T.G 21:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~ R.T.G 21:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The other photo has a more spectacular composition, but this one has fewer problems with the sky, and it is quite striking, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of wow but the nearer peak obstructing the coastline is a pity (though that’s hard to avoid unless you engage a drone I suppose). The rock textures look oversharpened to me (bright seams around dark edges). --Kreuz schnabel 10:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely view but the image quality of this one is not as good as the other one, it seems slightly oversharpened to me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, composition doesn't work like the other one does. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kilchurn Castle at sunrise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 11:56:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#United Kingdom
Info Kilchurn Castle, a now-ruined C15th castle in Argyllshire, Scotland. This kind of very long-exposure photography isn't to everyone's taste, but it's a legitimate technique, and I think it works very well here. created by MHoser - uploaded by MHoser - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wonder how that could win. Little monument, a lot of landscape. For me too surreal. With natural sky I would vote with a pro. Not like that. --Milseburg (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, this is a 94-second exposure, and that kind of photography very much divides opinion. I like it, but I would not be surprised if others shared your view that it's too unnatural Cmao20 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How that could win? Already awarded the 1st prize in the national contest of UK in WLM 2019 -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my English: I meant: I wonder how that has could win (wie es gewinnen konnte). For WLM, the monument here is too less dominant, regardless of the question of the heaven. There were better pictures in the UK competition. --Milseburg (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were right. You wondered how that (photograph) could win, or maybe most formally correct in grammar, how it could have won or simply how it won. And das Himmel is the sky (sometimes, poetically, the Heavens, or in a religious sense, Heaven). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How it could win is ambiguous. How it could have won is not. How it could win without reference to the WLM competition, easily means win FP here (or get promoted), due to the absence of reference to the past. Now that has become clear, thanks for the clarification -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not ambiguous to me. IMO, photos don't win at FPC. They can be said to pass or fail. WLM is a competition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary: Win: "To achieve victory." -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to use Wiktionary to argue English usage with a native speaker? I'm outta this side discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ridiculous. I don't pretend to speak better English than a native, and your behavio(u)r reminds me this discussion (about the meaning of the word "transport"). FP is not a competition, but it is a challenge in itself. Win: intransitive verb. You can win or lose, in a fight, you can win or lose, in a discussion, in a debate for a consensus, you can win or lose the challenge, in your FP candidature. Is that correct or not? Not equivocal for you, well, lucky Ikan, but accept it can be ambiguous (not incorrect) for others (and without being a tremendous issue) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In German: Ich wollte sagen: Ich frage mich, wie dieses Bild den WLM-Wettbewerb gewinnen konnte (past,no subjunctive mood), da das Monument im Vergleich zur Landschaft recht wenig dominant erscheint. Für FPC ist das unerheblich. Bei FPC scheitert die Kandidatur für mich am unnatürlichen Himmel. How to say this 1:1 in English? Ok, I should have known the difference between heaven and sky. --Milseburg (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm not opposed to the technique, but in this case, the effect is to make the sky and water look more like static masses, with attendant harm to the form. A more normal sky and water would be a hell of a lot better for moving one's eyes around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this technique a lot, when handled right so that it results in beautiful shapes and light that adds to the photo. There aren't that many photographers who can pull it off well enough, and unfortunately this isn't one of them. It doesn't add any nice light, the only real result is making the clouds look like a toppled stack of ... well that's not polite to say. --Cart (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Golden light and reflection -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just working for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je-str (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks magic --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The long exposure makes it indeed look a bit weird, but it works for me. --Domob (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Cart. Just a little too self-consciously arty for us. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support not for all of us --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 04:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least this picture could be a promising candidate in the most-undiscovered-dust-spots competition. A sloppy check added up to 9. This isn't even QI standard and should be fixed. Beyond that I feel the mountains in the left a bit distracting and dominating by volume and clarity - but not so much that it spoils the picture. --PtrQs (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PtrQs: , you are quite right, but the dust spots should be fixed now. Cmao20 (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support aaah the dust spots hunting, national sport at FPC... Nice pic btw :) - Benh (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit tilted CCW, imho. --Laitche (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get where the opposes are coming from, I think, but this works for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lichenostomus melanops - Glen Alice.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2019 at 18:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to the head of the bird --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent catch, a magic picture! I wonder how many photos JJ Harrison had to make to finally get this one. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support!!! — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 20:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfection.--Peulle (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow - Benh (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a great picture of the bird in flight. I find it a little strange to look at because there's no way to tell where the bird is flying or what the area looks like, but I'm sure that was a necessary tradeoff. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support More space on the top would be nice though. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Smooth gradient of the background, excellent sharpness for an action shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality makes up for the tight top space --Kreuz schnabel 07:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I could choose, I'd rather have more space on the top than bottom, but it is a great shot in any case! --Domob (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent. Charles (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, sharp, and good DOF. Ahmad^talk 18:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Phenomenal stuff. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Sets a new standard for bird-in-fight FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope this isn't the new standard for birds-in flight FPs since you need a $11,000 lens to do this. Not that many photographers here can afford that. --Cart (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 10:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 37 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jacques-Louis David - Cupid and Psyche - 1962.37 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tiff, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 22:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Nudes
Info digital image courtesy of the contributed by the Cleveland Museum of Art - uploaded by BotMultichill - nominated by Multichill. Fun fact: Images was used on a dress (photo 11 /15) -- Multichill (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Multichill (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice painting, but very heavy file, and not a widespread format. Any chance to get a JPG version? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a widespread format? I’ve heard of an online encyclopedia going like, "Tagged Image File Format, abbreviated TIFF or TIF, is a computer file format for storing raster graphics images, popular among graphic artists, the publishing industry,[1] and photographers. TIFF is widely supported […]" --Kreuz schnabel 05:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel: you're very cultivated, wow :-) Yes, tiff is popular among graphic artists, which means if you're not one of those, you can't easily use this file. Because you'll have to find the dedicated software to convert it to a more accessible format. Remember Commons is a repository, that should make the files easy to use, for anyone, not only for experts. This is a friendly request, to help this nomination. Similar candidatures failed in the past, mainly for this reason -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have somehow grown up with TIFF files so they don’t seem that exotic to me. However, youre right so as [4] recommends to convert TIFF into PNG for lossless sharing. --Kreuz schnabel 09:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How they always manage to get a piece of cloth into the right place to keep youth protection … however, talking about "anatomically correct": the lady pitifully has no vulva. --Kreuz schnabel 06:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They also have wings in the back, but no beak. Strange birds :-) Basile Morin (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for this. I really didn’t see them as wings but for some oddly shaped pillows. You think they lay eggs? --Kreuz schnabel 09:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eggzactly. Eggs and arches :-) Basile Morin (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cupid looks remarkably pleased with himself. Cmao20 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed FP category for you. Please check the categories at Template:Commons FP galleries carefully when you make the nomination. --Cart (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for a 184 cm (72.4 ); Width: 242 cm (95.2 ) painting, resolution should be higher.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mandelbox-Oberfläche (symmetrisch) 8K.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 16:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other
Info An symmetrical image showing the details of the surface of the Mandelbox created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Punta dei Tre Scarperi 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 05:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna. Dolomites are one of the most beautiful areas of the world, and this peak is my favourite, managed to photograph it under a perfect light. —kallerna (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, strong shadows, a bit boring composition. I miss a wow factor -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm missing the big wow too. The resolution is OK, but I've come to expect more from nature shots like this one. Just a good QI. --Peulle (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the view to these giant rocks. --Hockei (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the lighting is what makes it special in my view. Favorably emphasizes the land forms. But I agree with Basile about the composition. - Benh (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rocks are impressing.--Ermell (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm not convinced the light is that great myself, but it's a beautiful place. Cmao20 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The directional lighting works here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a QI, but for me the composition and light does not work to make it FP. --Domob (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --Milseburg (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love those craggy cliffs ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Yes, the place is nice enough (but then, we judge images not places), the crags are impressing and the light is not bad. What I’m not at all convinced of is the composition, too much is cut off on the bottom and right. --Kreuz schnabel 14:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tabatabai House.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 07:42:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Amirpashaei: Support, but there shouldn't be a red link as category and the description and the label must be improved. --XRay ^talk 11:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and nice colours. --Hockei (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Sorry, too harsh contrast for me. Maybe at a different time of day it would have been better. --A.Savin 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC) OK, that is at least a significant improvement. --A.Savin 12:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colourful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin, additionally i think that composition could be better --Andrei 09:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per A.Savin.--Peulle (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @A.Savin: , @Andrei: , @Peulle: , I lowered the contrast and improved the dark sections of picture. Thanks for your kind criticism A.Savin. --Amirpashaei (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the main problem are the highlights on the floor, they are not fixable. --A.Savin 13:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @A.Savin: you're right. I fixed that. thanks --Amirpashaei (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice effort. You improved the floor, but lost the windows. Try to fix them too, maybe it's then enough for a neutral vote... --A.Savin 15:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and contrast seems right to me. --Domob (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin -- Karelj (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically not really well done. Unaesthetic blown highlights, and green fringes on the wooden frames -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree, light management could be better Poco a poco (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for the improvement but still lacking some wow here Poco a poco (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @A.Savin: , @Karelj: , @Basile Morin: , @Andrei: , @Peulle: , @Poco a poco: , I improved highlight in glasses too, say me if have another problem. thanks for your kind--Amirpashaei (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. --Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was actually waiting for this improved version. Thank you. Ahmad^talk 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support nice image, but I do think there's something a little lacking in the composition. e.g. I would've liked the colorful light on the floor to be on the dominant side of the image. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ebrach Kloster Kirche Decke distortion removed -RM-20190425-01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2019 at 12:03:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info Alternative. Ceiling in the former abbey church in Ebrach.The fisheye distortion was removed.The fisheye distortion has been removed here. Unfortunately you always lose details in the process. The Gothic church was baroqueized in the eighteenth century, which is why its form is unusually straight and narrow. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, Ermell, this is not how you add an alternative. Instead you now have three nominations. I'll fix it for you to make it the right way. --Cart (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Info and text moved to correct nom. I'll just FPD this and archive the faulty nom. Problem solved. --Cart (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Cart (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dojikko.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 22:09:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Depiction of a Dojikko (a clumsy girl, that doesn't miss a chance to make a mistake).

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Duos (depictions of two people)
Info created, uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Masumrezarock100 -- Masum Reza^📞 22:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - See the previous discussion. There were lot of invalid opposes due to this image not being "educational". But I think it meets FP criteria. -- Masum Reza^📞 22:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even a "non-educational" image is being used by multiple Wikimedia sites. LOL. Masum Reza^📞 22:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is cool. It is used in many articles. ~~--165.225.84.104 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)~~ --Andrei 07:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote. But per Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Voting, Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. Sorry. Masum Reza^📞 22:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Done I had a problem with login --Andrei 08:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Striked the IP so there is no confusion with the vote counting later. --Cart (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support And what about the svg version ?,--Wilfredor (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dojikko2.3.svg is the SVG version but I would not try to open in my browser if I were you. The browser would likely crash/freez. Masum Reza^📞 23:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100: too much better, I love your the work that has been done here, I know how difficult it is to do this --Wilfredor (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed FP category for you, "Animated" means moving pictures like gifs, not "Amine". Please check the categories at Template:Commons FP galleries carefully when you make the nomination. --Cart (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I know what anime is! I watch them all the time! (I mean, not really). I could not find anything specific category for anime. I thought it could be similar. Masum Reza^📞 17:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, I couldn't know how much you knew about it (the same way you can't know that you are calling a sixty year old lady "Dude" :-) ) and I was only fixing the correct category. --Cart (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC) a.k.a Dude[reply]

No, I am not offended at all. Sorry for assuming your gender. I should have used a gender neutral pronoun. I have a bad habit of calling others "dude". Masum Reza^📞 13:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One person cut off, no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for the revert. I misclicked the rollback link from mobile watchlist. Masum Reza^📞 17:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm just not that impressed with the work. Sure, I get that the photo is useful, and perhaps it would be a good VI. But the frame is inconsistent in terms of realism in a way that puts me off balance. The girl on the ~~left~~ right (dojikko, I guess) looks like she's ice skating while throwing a platter, and some things in the background are quite detailed and realistic, but the girls and animals are not. But mainly, it's just aesthetics - I don't love this frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually girl on the right is the Dojikko. She is not throwing the platter; she was carrying an octopus and some flowers on it. She is so clumsy that she couldn't even carry those stuffs properly. The image is portraying her as if she is going to fall. By the way, what gave you the idea that she is "ice skating"? The floor is clearly not made of ice and her boot/shoe is not for ice skating either. ~~At least take a look at the image before voting.~~ Masum Reza^📞 13:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was obvious from my comment that I meant the girl on the right, and I also said she looks like she's ice skating, not that she's actually depicted as ice skating or that there is ice on the floor. Your approach of attacking everyone who opposes any of your nominations as if they're either idiots or didn't look at the photo is not going to convince more people to vote for your nominations. Instead, you may eventually have a fate similar to the one documented at User talk:Livioandronico2013, for creating a hostile work environment for volunteers here. I know you wouldn't even think of listening to a warning from someone who was so unforgivably stupid as to oppose one of your nominations, so just carry on the way you are and see what happens. I'm done with this discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: For your information, this is my first FP nomination and I am not too familiar with the process. I only nominated pictures for QI before. And no one accused me of attacking others there. Could you provide "evidence" that I attack everyone who opposes any of my nominations? Uoaei1 also opposed this nomination, I am not sure how I "attacked" them. I am happy to improve myself if you could show me which one of my comments look like attacks. That said, I have struck one of the sentences in my comments above as they might be little too harsh. Masum Reza^📞 13:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100 and Ikan Kekek: I can't speak for Ikan Kekek, but I can provide evidence of you "attacking" people, in this case me. Here you go! And look, it's not even his first time calling someone "dude"! You're lucky I don't take offense to that kind of insult. Also, I Oppose. As Kreuzschnabel once said, a Featured Picture shouldn't require a description, as it should speak for itself. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to settle in UK or what? Since when "dude" has become an insult? Now you are just talking off-topic stuff here. That undeletion discussion has nothing to do with this FPD. You could have experimented in your userpage but instead you chose to taint the Template namespace. If you want to discuss about it feel free to ask at COM:HD, COM:AN, COM:L, or at my talk page. But please stay on-topic and leave your personal grudges out of this discussion. Masum Reza^📞 18:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100: Um, you were the one who asked for "evidence" that you have attacked others. Everything I said was related to a comment already made by someone else. And don't you worry about the discussion being "tainted" by "personal grudges", as I have no grudge against anyone here. I have included my reasons for opposing in my above comment. Also, I don't like how the girl on the left is partially cut out of the frame. Don't get so worked up every time someone opposes your nomination; FP nominations fail all the time, and this is only your first time nominating here, anyway. Also, no, I do not plan to settle in the UK, as I am quite happy with my life here in the States. And of course I couldn't have known that I was "tainting" the template namespace; I thought I was helping out by making a standardized version of an allowed template. But that's certainly enough talking about the other matters which you brought up; now back to the image. For starters, if there was a version of the image that included all of the girl on the left, the nomination would certainly have better chances. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see anything special in this image. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Draceane. I surely miss a point but still fail to see anything special here, it looks like some random screenshot of an animated movie to me. What’s the educational use of this fictional scene? --Kreuz schnabel 08:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I'm going to give it my support. The proportions are wrong, and really look like drawn by a child. But anyone who tries a bit of vector drawing will realise there's an amount of work behind this. And the result is not that bad (proportions aside, again). Rather this than a boring ceiling. - Benh (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, I agree that there's plenty educational value in this. The Wikimedia projects are are about so much more than flowers and churches. Anime and Manga are just as much a part of todays society as watching tennis on TV. They have their own terms for different styles, techniques, tropes that need explanation and illustration just like Football terminology does (or doesn't, depending on personal interests). And as far as I (as somebody who has not much insight into the scene) can tell, this drawing is doing a pretty decent job at distilling the essence of what makes a Dojikko character. That's a pro at VI as "best in scope".

So why am I still opposing? Well, the background looks very good and I can't see much being wrong about the girl on the left, but the main subject has some major issues that prevent me from considering it "top notch". 1) as pointed out above, the proportions are just wrong, the head does not fit the body. Cartoon/comic/manga proportions are of course different from real-life proportions, but they still follow some rules. 2) Despite it being an action scene, the whole thing looks extremely static, almost frozen. Maybe it's the complete absence of speed lines, maybe the pose is not exaggerated enough, but in any case it looks anything but dynamic to me. --El Grafo (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boy in Dar ul-Ihsan Mosque.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2019 at 08:07:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info created by Salar.arkan - uploaded by Salar.arkan - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei 08:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei 08:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Support --Kreuz schnabel 11:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours, gloomy mood and light on the boy. --Domob (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to the boy, beautiful dark colours and it looks like a photo with a story --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I experienced, Muslim people are not willing to be photographed while praying. The boy is clearly identifiable, so the picture has a Personality rights problem. --A.Savin 00:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not made during a religious service, also this statement appears to be an overgeneralization of more than 1bln people made from a cultural outsider's point of view. Anyways, theres a Personality rights warning in the file now. --Andrei 08:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  - AFAIK, it doesn't matter if during a service or not. --A.Savin 12:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP, mosques are not only used for praying, but also for education and debates. This boy looks like he is studying, not praying. Also, the photographer is Iranian, so I think he has an inkling about what's ok and not. --Cart (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 04:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent - both idea and execution! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until the personality rights' question is clarified. Sorry, but Commons has a restrictive policy on PR, especially that of minors. Pictures of European or North American minors had been deleted if it was not clear about parental permission; and I don't see why Iranian people were to be treated with any less respect, sorry. --A.Savin 13:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at Commons:Country specific consent requirements. --Andrei (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Commons requirements aside, this photo was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in Iran. As such, it has been scrutinized by the WLM Iran organizers. If there was anything inappropriate about it, I think the Iranians would have acted in some way. --Cart (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and environment --Wilfredor (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has some nice qualities, but if one of us downsized an ISO 100 photo of a still scene by nearly 50%, from 24MP to 6MP, there's be complaints. If the photographer wants to upload the 24MP original, I'll reconsider. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be inclined to support, but I'm interested in your point. How do you know the original was 24 MP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think some of the unused space could be cropped away, particularly that dark area on the right. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont you think that it gives some additional deapth and sense of isolation? --Andrei (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More than it needs. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Ok, someone help me out. What's the light source? EXIF says there was no flash and I would think that a window directly above would be dispersed more? And the intensity of the reflected light off the book, illuminating the boy's face, is surprising (it's stronger then the light on the top of his head, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other photos from this mosque, there seems to be a balcony or something like that inside the mosque, since some photos are taken from a higher level. This is taken when the mosque is empty and dark, so it's not out of the realm of possibilities that this photo is cleverly staged. You arrange to have access to the place "after hours"; you bring a boy (perhaps from your family) and a book. You seat the kid with the book, and position a friend with a photo spotlight up at the balcony to aim the light the right way at the book, and then you take the photo. Am I the only one here who is used to working on staged photo shoots with models? A rather normal photo crew consist of the photographer, a model, a technician, a handler for the model and props plus a gofer for miscellaneous. This is a semi-professional photographer, used to creating photos rather that just snap what he can find. --Cart (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chiesa di San Gaetano Santa Agata Brescia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2019 at 13:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Truce presentation of the martyrdom of Saint Agatha by Grazio Cossali in the Chiesa di San Gaetano church in Brescia. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gore! Splatter genre -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the light, the black surfaces look blue at the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great painting. Maybe not as sharp as your usual at 100%, but fine at 12mpx. Cmao20 (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per basile. Light reflection ( ? ) = not a faithful representation of the art. Which is a sole reason for voting for this photo. - Benh (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Benh. Without knowing the original it’s just a guess of course, but the darker tones look too greyish. I’d also prefer to have more of the painting and less of its framing but that might be a matter of mere taste --Kreuz schnabel 07:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like bad lighting. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I forgot the lights back home --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Light reflection. --Gnosis (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzchnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hauptgipfel der Reiter Alm 2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 10:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View from the Schottmalhorn southwestward to the highest part of the Reiter Alpe in the Berchtesgaden National Park. All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just another mountain photo in harsh midday light. There are thousands of such images on Commons. Please can you fix the FP gallery to be more precise. It should be Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany with a # anchor-link to the region the photo is from. -- Colin (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is near the border. We see partly Germany, partly Austria. --Milseburg (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see a QI but am not convinced that it's one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others - definitely a nice picture / QI, but nothing special enough for FP. --Domob (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the quality is good as usual for you but I think Domob and Colin have said it all. Good snap but not outstanding in light or composition. Cmao20 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trimeresurus venustus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 17:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Viperidae (Vipers)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had already laid eyes on this as possible nomination. --Ivar (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a beautiful snake! Too bad more of it couldn't be sharp, but that's not possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was glad to see this picture. But, too bad, I have to agree with Ikan. At least the head should have enough DOF. --Hockei (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 10:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO sharp in sufficient places to be a good FP candidate. Cmao20 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 19:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Viperidae (Vipers)

File:Petermann Ranges (AU), Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Uluru -- 2019 -- 3704-8.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2019 at 06:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced, sorry. Nothing baffling as for composition; we’ve all seen hundreds of Uluru images looking more or less exactly like this. Well, that’s the shooting point. At 100 percent, it’s surprisingly unsharp and noisy for a stitched panoramic; downscaled to 50 percent, it looks sharp without losing detail but still very noisy in the darker parts. Category:Uluru contains some images with way more interesting lighting and/or framing, admittedly not at this resolution (though this one is certainly overdone). --Kreuzschnabel 16:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of your contributions, this one looks much more interesting to me but is all unsharp as well. What happened? In the bygone times of chemical photography, we used to blame the x-ray at the airport for such flaws … --Kreuzschnabel 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other one is taken from a very long distance. But I'm not sure what happened with the panorama. May be it's generated wrong. The filesize should be larger too. I'll check this tomorrow. --XRay ^talk 16:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made some improvements. The photo looks like unsharp only if I'm looking at a smartphone. But may be the image is too common to become a FP. --XRay ^talk 06:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I made a decision ... --XRay ^talk 09:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caesalpinia July 2011-1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2019 at 19:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info This nomination has been dormant for several years because I couldn't decide if the image deserved the star. I still don't but it is a marvelous flower anyway. The photo was taken at the Jardin des Plants, in Paris, more than 8 years ago. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It is a very interesting flower, but I find the picture a bit too soft for a FP of such a subject. --Domob (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Domob. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soft and motion-blurred at a small image size, and dull light. I don’t think the category suggested is specific enough. --Kreuz schnabel 15:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, useful illustration of the plant but IMO not sharp enough considering relatively small resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per others, not up to the standards of our many other flower FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Townhall - Ewattingen 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 21:25:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It is an idyllic scene, but I don't like the asymmetry introduced by the building on the left. (I think you actually did a good job in composing the picture, this is just the location.) --Domob (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the composition, and the bit of complexity makes it much more interesting to me than many symmetrical pictures of buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Straightforward composition, harsh light... Nothing special overall. - Benh (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment Due to the remarks of Domob, the same building from another point of view. --Llez (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the alternative, but I still like the other composition better due to the central (and mostly symmetric) view. But of course that's just my view, perhaps others disagree here so let's see what they say. --Domob (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a proper alternative (another processing or crop), it's a totally different photo. It belongs in a new nom. --Cart (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same. And annoying tree in the middle. - Benh (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, next time I will log the tree before photographing ;-) --Llez (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not an alternative. Two different photos -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh --Andrei (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danseuse de debaa à Mayotte.jpg

File:Taleqan, iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 19:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent quality (pixelpeeping I spotted one very minor stitching error in the foreground power wires), just the color saturation seems overdone to me (especially the red channel). And please do add geo information (coords of viewpoint). --Kreuzschnabel 19:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kreuzschnabel: Thanks for the helpful points you have given. I geotagged the picture as you said. i cant find stitching problem. I will be grateful if you Specify the error point on the picture. thanks--Amirpashaei (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive resolution indeed! Per Kreuzschnabel, please add a geolocation. Otherwise great! --Domob (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice river bending - Benh (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it me or is the image part on the left leaning to the left? Apart from that, a beautiful image (high res!) and a worth wallpaper image! --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @PantheraLeo1359531: thanks for your kind. I adjusted the perspective in all the picture. check it with rulers tools in photoshop and if there any problem say to me. thanks again.--Amirpashaei (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thank you for the information --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Effort pays off ... I love the detail and it makes me ask questions. What are those people doing down by the river (or in it)? Swimming? Is it hot enough already there at the end of spring? Is the water warm enough? It also seems like there are channelization efforts in progress (although not while or where this photo was taken). Really interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case: thanks for your kind. this area is cool even in summer. you can see a little snow on the mountain in this picture. the river comes from snow melting and Natural springs boiling from the mountains. so water is cold. A man has gone into the water--Amirpashaei (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition and interesting, as mentioned above. I see people walking across the river (at least the one woman), seemingly washing things in it, fishing, and I think some are just standing in it. There's a group that seems to be picnicking by the river. I also notice the tents next to cars. Is this a national park? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: thanks ikan. this day was holiday after ramadan (Eid al-Fitr), and most people after 30 days of fasting can celebrate this day and go to the nature for 3-4 days. taleqan has a good nature and weather.tehran and karaj are Polluted cities and near the taleqan, therefore people love this weather. this area is not national park. the Homes have owners but around the river does not belong to anyone. --Amirpashaei (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a very good policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hanooz 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xesta fulvizona balantensis 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 21:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours.--Peulle (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 19:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 19:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bahía de Cámara de Lobos, Madeira, Portugal, 2019-05-29, DD 51-58 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2019 at 13:03:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Portugal
Info Bay of Câmara de Lobos, Madeira, Portugal. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive resolution! The cropped buildings at the bottom are a bit unfortunate, but otherwise this is a great panorama. --Domob (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have counted at least six stitching errors, one of which is quite ugly across the boats. Please check your work before nominating! Overall looks like a good place for photographing, but light conditions were imho not favorable, sharpness is not very good on the left side and bottom crop is unfortunate. --Ivar (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: Thank you for all those notes. I've fixed the stitching issues, regarding the bigger ones in the middle, they are new and unintended due to a perspective edit I performed today. I'm surprised to see the result. Regarding sharpness, I agree, one or two frames could be sharper, but they don't look bad to me and I'm offering a 140 MPx image here. Is the lighting so bad? Regarding the crop at the bottom, I can say that I ran the area up and down and still believe that this one was the best spot to shot. --Poco a poco (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm looking at the very first version of this panorama and I like it more than the last one. Clouds and shadows are nicely visible and even the right crop looks more pleasant. --Ivar (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I do prefer this crop but no problem to offer that version as alt, too. Any other opinions? --Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support more for the extraordinarily high resolution than for anything exceptional in terms of light or composition. Cmao20 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - High resolution is not a criterirum for promotion while image quality and composition are not the best. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not finding the composition compelling. The right third isn't contributing positively and better focused on the harbour. The overcast light is not appealing. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this could be an FP with the right light and sky. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Of course the resolution is outstanding, but I think the noise in darker areas is too much for me. This is a high quality image, but I assume there are more tweaks needed that explain a proper FP promotion. I'm always sorry when I decline an image where the author has surely spend much time on, but maybe the issues are fixable somehow --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reflection of Fisherman's Bastion on the Hilton hotel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2019 at 22:20:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Hungary
Info created by Julesvernex2 - uploaded by Julesvernex2 - nominated by Julesvernex2 -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's interesting but I'm not wowed enough by this. The light is not very exciting and the bottom part is a bit cluttered. The open window in the middle provides an interesting feature but I don't find a meaningful connection with the reflection. Like there were 2 different ideas in 1 picture. Sorry for that - but please don't feel discouraged and keep nominating :) --Podzemnik (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks Podzemnik. The connection (or rather, disconnection) between the hotel window and the reflection is perhaps difficult to grasp without a bit of context. The hotel was built on the grounds of a 13th century monastery and mere meters away from the Fisherman's Bastion, seen in the reflection. The clutter you mention is indeed the feeling I had when seeing a hotel so close (this close) to UNESCO World Heritage sites. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Taking that into account, the picture works, but you have to read the description – while an excellent image should explain itself. --Kreuz schnabel 07:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it very much, it's a fun juxtaposition of old against new. There's something in the modernistic regularity of the shapes and forms of the hotel that contrasts nicely with the monastery. Image quality is pretty good too. Cmao20 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Podzemnik Poco a poco (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consider a 2:3 crop of just the interesting segment. I'll add a image-note. The result might be a bit small (7.8MP) -- are you able to go back and try again? -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a very keen observation Colin, thank you. I think the resulting image is indeed less cluttered, without losing its main subjects. I've also taken the opportunity to increase blue levels a bit, in an attempt to bring the color of the sky closer to what it looked like that day. Regarding the resolution, I'm regrettably not able to retake the shot, as I have no plans to return to Budapest anytime soon. Hopefully a fellow local Wikimedian can do that :) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One issue though is that it is we have introduced a parallax error, as the original photograph was centered on the window. Retaking the shot would be indeed the way to go. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Podzemnik -- Karelj (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Podzemik and Kreuzschnabel. Regretful oppose because the idea is interesting, but the image does not work for me. --Dinkum (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waterworks Museum (85495s)bw.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2019 at 22:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Machines
Info old machinery at the defunct Chestnut Hill Pumping Station in Boston, Massachusetts. 5-image stack. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok... but I really think you should try taking some photos of your own instead of just nicking screen shots from old Fritz Lang movies and passing them off as you own... :-} --Cart (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not blind to the unsharp areas, but I like the composition too much not to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 06:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it BW? It reduces EV, so I think we should not encourage removing the colours. Guidelines: Value & Digital manipulations. —kallerna (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better in BW --Andrei (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, brings out the shapes better. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite noisy, but the picture overall is very nice! --Domob (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those cases where I support B/W - Benh (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a case where B&W is the best option. Cmao20 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart's comment. I love that a picture in black and white, even today, can look retro beyond just being in grayscale. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture reminds me of an old movie --Wilfredor (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van Val Sinestra via Vnà naar Zuort. 16-09-2019. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2019 at 16:01:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors/Switzerland
Info Detail of a weathered old wooden door of a House on Plaz in Vnà. Beauty in decline. The rusty door handle in combination with the weathered green color and the white stripes on the old wood.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Er is iets misgegaan toen je dit uploadde. Er is een grijze lijn onderaan de foto. Upload een nieuwe versie over de oude. --Cart (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Bedankt voor uw opmerking! Ik had het niet gezien.(erg dom) Een nieuwe over de oude gezet. Hopelijk is het nu goed.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Het is goed nu. :-) --Cart (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Nice picture! I'm not completely wow-ed by it immediately (as with some other FPs), but looking at it for some time, it seems to "work" for me. --Domob (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Thank you for your comment. This is not a "slick photo". That was not the intention either. It is a photo that shows that decay can also be beautiful. The photo is somewhat updated with "Faithful". Then the colors remain as authentic as possible. The color of the rust in the photo is in my opinion. As the color should be.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really good motif, and I understand exactly your reasoning in nominating this for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also miss wow feeling here. Decay can indeed be beautiful and I love pictures of abandoned places like power plants or former production sites. I though understand that others may like it, but it isn't just the kind of picture I'd place among our finest, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco a poco -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not getting wowed by this. Perhaps if you had raking light to bring out the texture. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crops at top and bottom bother me. Either include all of the pattern or none of it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garpenbergs gruvkapell 2019-08-30 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2019 at 15:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by me. Peviously nominated by ArildV (aborted by me before the voting period was over, in order to make some adjustments). -- Vivo (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivo (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romantic. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice scene! I find the chapel itself a bit too dark, although of course the overall contrast and exposure of the picture works out with the brighter background. Also on 100% the edge of the upper roof looks a bit weird to me, like some artifacts from processing the picture ... it may only be some reflection on there, though. --Domob (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Were the ground and rocks really that purple? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's gravel of red granite, which means it can have a purple hue in the dawn. Vivo (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image quality, which is what stopped me from supporting last time, is now much better; fewer haloes and marks of oversharpening. Cmao20 (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per last time: "The blown sky on the left rather catches the eye, with industrial buildings below; the right hand side is nicer. Looks a bit over-processed". I see very very minor changes since last nomination (sky denoised and the over-sharpening halo "fixed" with the healing brush). The whole image looks a bit oddly coloured. -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Still some signs of oversharpening, but not enough to make me oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Johann Moritz Rugendas in Brazil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 01:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Groups
Info Author: Johann Moritz Rugendas. Uploaded and nomination by-- Wilfredor (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Certainly an important image, but why is the near right corner, and especially the man nearest to it, unsharp and lacking in the grain of the rest of the lithograph? (And by the way, a lithograph is a print, not a painting, so unless this is a lithograph copy of a painting, the English-language description should be changed, and if it is, it should be changed to reflect that, too.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was the original name in the museum, and unsharp area is lack of DoF --Wilfredor (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was the original name? Are you saying the museum called a lithograph a painting? I don't get it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways to paint on a lithograph and I think this was what the museum was trying to explain when placing this description. First of all we must understand that the term we use today as "lithography" is a connotation of the literal term that refers to engraving an original work in another material through the use of plates or molds developing a reciprocal diversion between lipophilic and hydrophilic substances. Method invented by the German, Aloys Senefelder. But like everything in this bizarre world we change or distort the intention. Today a lithograph is the replica of an original work printed on its variable presentations. Like the different items or products we use every day, to name a few, shoes, transport or houses. Pictorial art has suffered the benefits and cons of serial production. A work, commonly called "box" is the result of artistic work in its different techniques; oil, acrylic, watercolor, gouache, wax, pastel, ink, charcoal, etc ... until you get to mixed media, mixing of various components or techniques. To be able to differentiate a work from a "lithography", or graphic printing, lies in meticulously observing the pigments and looking for whether the piece contains print marks, squares that we can detect synonymous with a digitally produced work. Another feature of graphic prints is that it has a commonly white frame and bears the name of the artist digitally printed. Another feature of lithographs is the use of glass or mica on prints. On the other hand an original work, you will usually find it in a gallery or a museum. Same that are collected in restaurants, hotels, offices and residences. We can observe in detail the brushstrokes of the author, seeing a slight texture or wavy, traces of which there was a stroke of a brush, or spatula. A characteristic point that stands out is the signature of the artist, as this is almost always done after the sealant is applied to the work, therefore the signature stands out. It is also worth mentioning that today there are very efficient printing methods that result in a lithography with texture similar to that of an original work, but you can still recognize digital printing features. I hope this explanation helps to understand why it is like this in the description --Wilfredor (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the discourse on art history and methods, but what I really wanted to know is that it's a replica of a painting. That's the key point to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is a replica that then someone painted on it --Wilfredor (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for clarifying that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for the question, good morning --Wilfredor (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And good evening now. I would really love to support this nomination, but the unsharp spot makes me feel it's not an FP. Regardless of what happens here, I would like to see this as a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is particularly difficult to take photos in museums, I think I did not use enough depth of field --Wilfredor (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not an excellent picture for me --Fischer.H (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faloria Cortina d'Ampezzo 27.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 13:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Relaxing view with nice POV and light. —kallerna (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The changing light is indeed nice. I think the mountains in the sun are a bit too bright, though. Also it seems like there are compression artifacts, e.g. on the mountains against the sky. Did you upload with JPEG quality 100? --Domob (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the little flying gnats round the mountain top too. The EXIF says Photoshop quality level 9 [0..12] was used. See Jeffrey Friedl's page for comparison with Lightroom 0..100 scale. Lightroom's scale is just Photoshop's underneath, with only actually 13 levels. I find that 90% (=11 in Photoshop) brings big savings in file size for no perceptible loss. Using 100% is just wasting bytes. -- Colin (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but I agree with Domob that the mountains on the left seem a little washed out. I like the composition but I'm not sure this is special enough for FP, will think about it a bit more. Cmao20 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beautiful scenery but not the greatest composition to my taste, and no offense, I hope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have been very nice at another time of the day, with a better light and more subtle contrasts -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, Moroder has set the bar very high for this particular landscape. Second ... the haze. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination —kallerna (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edificios a lo largo del río Nidelva, Trondheim, Noruega, 2019-09-06, DD 63.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2019 at 17:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Norway
Info View of Bakklandet neighborhood along the Nidelva river seen from Gamle Bybro bridge, Trondheim, Norway. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good, but imho not outstanding. I would prefer better light and composition, something like this or this. --Ivar (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good but nothing special, no wow --Kreuz schnabel 18:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Not that sharp for a panorama, nowadays, mediocre light and uninteresting clouds, and I really love the composition of the 2nd photo linked by Ivar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of deep of field and boat is blurred. IMHO f/14 should be better and a shooter more fast (maybe using more ISO) to keep the boat on focus. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. Nice picture and view, but not special enough for FP for me. --Domob (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel --Fischer.H (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is what's missing here. I've seen a couple of other attempts to get an FP out of this admittedly strong motif, but none have been fortunate enough to capture it under interesting light, and I'm afraid I think the same this time. Cmao20 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, chiefly because of the sky and the light. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Englische Rose The Reeve Tropfen -RM-20190821-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 07:23:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Rosaceae
InfoBud of an English rose of the variety "The Reeve". Stack of 18 photos. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes. This was on my list of photos to nominate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 10:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Domob (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating work, and just so sharp! Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Woooooooow --Podzemnik (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Should you have a category for whatever that web is? Do you know what kind of web that is? It sure doesn't look like a typical spider web. Is it some kind of plant matter? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like rather ordinary sheet weaver's spider web to me. Ex 1, Ex 2, EX 3, Ex 4. Cats added. --Cart (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I find the large water blob with distortion effect a bit disturbing. -- Colin (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful --Wilfredor (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Odorrana hosii, Hose's frog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 12:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Ranidae (True Frogs)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pixel peeping it looks like the reflections are blown, but that's to expect in such a picture and IMHO not serious. Very nice shot in general! --Domob (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness at full-res, overall a quality nature shot. Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soo far the best current FPC --Wilfredor (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:На Свидовецькому масиві.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2019 at 12:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created & uploaded by Misha Reme - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent choice of lighting and composition. Bit grainy – I’d have applied less sharpening. Still great. --Kreuz schnabel 12:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky seems posterised, but that is probably fixable. Otherwise great shot! --Domob (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Without a fix to the posterisation issue, I have to oppose regretfully. --Domob (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see what Domob is referring to in terms of posterization: There are lines in the sky that don't look like they would have really been there but are simply boundaries between different hues; these are subtle but should be smoothed out. However, there is also a big dust spot that's partly cropped out, right at the top margin a bit to the right of the upper left corner. That needs to be removed (which could be as simple as cropping out a very small part of the top of the photo), and then I will support, as I love the composition, the colors and the painterly sensibility of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I love the composition and I had considered nominating this image myself last week, but the posterisation is something you can't unsee once you've seen it. Definitely FP when that is fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterisation is too obvious. Would support if better processed from raw (I'm sure plenty folk would offer to try if you asked). -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, tries too hard IMO. Between the distractingly unsharp foreground landscape and the banding in the sky, this is a great image that unfortunately came out as just good here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A shame. Like Cmao20 said, it's hard to unsee the posterization once you see it. Starts to look like phantom mountains in the background. Seems quite fixable, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Weak oppose for now – the banding/posterization in the sky should be fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont care the posterisation, the composition is too much spectacular --Wilfredor (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What about the big dust spot? You don't care about that, either? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:FDR 1944 Color Portrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2019 at 18:24:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Leon A. Perskie - uploaded by Wow - nominated by WClarke -- wclarke 18:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a beautiful color reversal photograph (Kodachrome I think) taken before color was widely adopted, and certainly is historically significant. The photograph was taken less than a year before the death FDR, and IMO is one of the most striking and emotional presidential portraits ever taken. -- wclarke 18:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support An iconic image that really helps express something of Roosevelt's character. But there is quite a lot of what looks like JPEG artefacting in some of the darker areas, unless I'm misinterpreting it; is there perhaps a less heavily compressed version available? Cmao20 (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo made from film. Film doesn't have jpeg artifacts, that came with the invention of digital cameras. You can't judge early color film photos by the same standards as modern digital photos. It's a miracle the colors are as good as they are here. --Cart (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand that, but of course a digitisation of it must have been produced at some stage, and it looked to me that at this stage some JPEG artefacts were introduced. Certainly the texture of the shadowy areas looks like JPEG artefacting more than it does film grain. Cmao20 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Iconic --Gnosis (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See File:FDR-1944-Campaign-Portrait.jpg which appears much closer to the version on Flickr. The one here has been lightened (background is dark brown rather than black) and cleaned up a bit. The file on Flickr is very highly compressed (837KB), and the processing here has brought out the JPG artefacts. -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the above: there are strong artifacts in the shadows, and as they are clearly digital in nature they must have been introduced after scanning and are thus not a problem of the original photograph. Not a good digital representation of the analog original. --El Grafo (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compression artifacts (1,69 MB is quite small for about 6 MPx). --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio Nacional, Sintra, Portugal, 2019-05-25, DD 22-27 PAN HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2019 at 20:44:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Portugal
Info Dome of Sala dos Brasões, centerpiece of Palácio Nacional, Sintra, Portugal. King Manuel ordered the construction o the Coats-of-Arms Room (Sala dos Brasões) (1515–1518), with a magnificent wooden coffered domed ceiling decorated with 72 coats-of-arms of the King and the main Portuguese noble families. The coat-of-arms of the Távora family was however removed after their conspiracy against king Joseph I. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite ceiling. Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Support, really excellent! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a very nice ceiling, but the picture seems a bit soft as well as overexposed in the centre to me? --Domob (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only 11.5MP from a 50MP camera? Despite being stitched the ceiling is cropped top and bottom (original upload managed the bottom row) resulting in the paintings being cut off. The left/right crops are rather tight. Too soft for 11MP at FP -- we have plenty higher resolution interiors. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Domob and Colin: lack of sharpness with mediocre resolution. Although the subject itself is very interesting. --Ivar (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the metadata was removed? --Wilfredor (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Wilfredor, that was not intentional, I reworked it with Adobe Photoshop. Poco a poco (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco I have not said that it was intentional, I am sure that perhaps it was a simple error when exporting that you can correct. Additionally, why have you decided to reduce the size of the photo "Only 11.5MP from a 50MP camera"? --Wilfredor (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor: I don't suppress the Exif data after editing in Ph in anyway, the way it looks is the default setting. I rather need a hint about how to make sure that the Exif data is not lost when editing the file in Ph or transfering it back from Ph to Lr. Any ideas? --Poco a poco (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC) PD: Regarding the concerns regarding resolution, see my answer below to Ikan[reply]

The standard export-to-Photoshop and return to Lightroom should not remove any metadata. How are you doing this step? And how do you save the file in Photoshop? Have you looked at your photoshop settings to see if you have options to remove metadata (common for the Save for web option). When exporting from Lightroom, have a look at the dialog options. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Colin. Could have forgone opposing if it hadn't been for the cut paintings on top and bottom. Same as cropping a painting in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked again and still find it sharp enough, but the idea that this was reduced to make it seem sharper gives me pause, so I await a reply to that query. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: as I already explained in QIC I didn't use the RAW version of my camera with the highest resolution, no downsampling was done here Poco a poco (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's called in-camera downsampling! Every photo of your camera starts out as a maximum pixel data. --Ivar (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If you wrongly picked a low resolution JPG mode on your camera, you really can't expect to get an FP for a building interior. FP is about Finest and we have lots of ceilings with great detail and resolution. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In view of this, I've crossed out my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. "In-camera downsampling" is not necessary. 64 GB and 128 GB SD cards are available and affordable nowadays. Otherwise, not very much of wow about the subject (w/o downsampling, would probably just abstain). --A.Savin 14:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stubborn support because I think some people here are being entirely too picky about this one. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:SierpOkt201911068KOpenCL 002 klein.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 18:19:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info View onto the peak of the Sierpinski octahedron, created/uploaded/nominated by PantheraLeo1359531
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not interesting viewing to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Lawrence Jewry, City of London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 13:53:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The interior of St Lawrence Jewry, the official church of the Lord Mayor of London, located next to Guildhall in the City of London. Built according to the designs of Sir Christopher Wren after the previous church was destroyed in the Great Fire of London, it is considered amongst the masterpieces of English baroque. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture! The view seems slightly asymmetric to me - is that on purpose? It feels a bit weird. --Domob (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the slight asymmetries in the ceiling? I'm fairly sure they are a genuine feature of the church. It is relatively common for churches of this kind to be built in an asymmetrical fashion, you can see a much more noticeable example in this FP. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is one more row of benches on the left side: first row on the left is much closer to the altar than the first row on the right. (And yes: it does feel a bit weird.) --El Grafo (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good, subject not expectional and the lack of symmetry annoying Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry doesn't seem to have been possible, so you're saying an FP of the view down the nave of this church is impossible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent --Wilfredor (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bonn 1 Million 1923.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 22:18:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Money
Issued by the City of Bonn (1923), reproduced from an original banknote, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 19:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once upon a time almost everyone was a millionaire, but not happy about that at all … ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even more interesting when the historical context is considered. Cmao20 (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ratargul 0276.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2019 at 03:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Abdulmominbd - uploaded by Abdulmominbd - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very special --Schnobby (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 19:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support liked this when I saw it during WLE. Needs better categorization/description, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. Original view point -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good drone quality and nice compo Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting image although the quality is not perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Світанок на Сулі. Околиці села Малоселицького.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2019 at 23:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info Yes, you could argue this is 'just another sunrise/sunset', but it has more than that for me. I enjoy the serene mood, the early morning colours, the reflections in the water, and also the composition with the long letterbox crop - reminds me, both in proportion and to some extent in colour, of the Japanese sliding door paintings of the Kanō school. created by Pavlo Prystai - uploaded by Pavlo Prystai - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light and mood! --Domob (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Composition, light and mood are great but Regretful very weak oppose for image quality. Too soft for me, strong CA on the foreground trees on the left, the tree on the right is rather unsharp than just soft. It’s a pity. --Kreuz schnabel 07:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very nice in thumbnail but - sorry - poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not finding the composition as compelling as you. More could have been made of reflections. Just another sunset. -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise, actually . This is of course subjective, and it would be dull if we all had the same compositional tastes. Thanks for the review though. Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per all the things said above. --Aristeas (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak regretful oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Weak candidature in my view. I've been following it since the beginning, hesitating to give a "very weak oppose", because this sunrise is not original, and the elongated format not really my taste. But the composition within the frame works for me. Overall I find this landscape just average, but clearly not special enough to support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hills in Lewis Pass, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2019 at 08:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info All by me. These are hill in Lewis Pass, New Zealand. The picture was taken in the chilly morning in autum. I like the light and how the shadows give the photo 3D vibes. -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadows are indeed very nice! --Domob (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A few clouds high in the sky would have made this photo even better, but that's no good reason not to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --Aristeas (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light and composition. -- Colin (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 22:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support After all these early-spring scenes, a great one from last autumn. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very strong candidate. Cmao20 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)

File:Ptilotula fusca - Glen Alice.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2019 at 07:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 17:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The tail feathers are motion blurred, but still excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing posterisation in the background. -- Colin (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 22:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Colin, and I'm not sure the detail at full res is as good as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petermann Ranges (AU), Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Uluru, Kuniya Walk -- 2019 -- 3615.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2019 at 08:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of wow and sharpness, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely place and overall good image quality but I don't see an FP level composition. Perhaps a wider panorama would work better. Cmao20 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20. I find especially the lack of balance between left and right a bit disturbing in the composition (if you know what I mean). --Domob (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Oh. It's better to withdraw this image (and nominate another one). --XRay ^talk 06:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, o neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 06:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grisaglia allegoria con fascio littorio Santa Maria della Carità Brescia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 19:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info This is a 18th century grisaille a painting executed entirely in shades of grey. It gives a very plastic impression, a baroque imitation of a sculpture. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and unusual painting; very sharp and excellent quality. Cmao20 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not interesting from a photographic point of view. Everyone with a sub 100$ camera can shoot this. - Benh (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure nonsense--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Benh; also in any event it needs a slight perspective correction. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed verticals, thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good photo, but I'm somehow not wowed by it; maybe it's hard to get the gray composition across vividly enough for me, and I wonder what it would look like in black & white. However, this would be a great VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebrach Kloster Kirche Decke P4252488efs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 16:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
InfoCeiling in the former abbey church in Ebrach. The fisheye distortion is intended and part of the composition. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why has the second version been downsampled almost 10 times to 7,28 Mpx? --Ivar (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info That's a valid question. A mistake on my part.--Ermell (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (whatever the size) non symmetry. And even a crop won't fix because of unfortunate camera position (which looks arbitrary). - Benh (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Doesn't feel arbitrary to me and it's a beautiful interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good quality and high resolution but I'm not sure I like the fisheye distortion, even though I understand that's what you were aiming for. Cmao20 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I kind of like the fisheye ... it gives the structure a slightly organic feel. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Alternative. Ceiling in the former abbey church in Ebrach.The fisheye distortion was removed. The fisheye distortion has been removed here. Unfortunately you always lose details in the process. The Gothic church was baroqueized in the eighteenth century, which is why its form is unusually straight and narrow. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Claus-Christian Carbon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 14:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by C.Suthorn - uploaded by C.Suthorn - nominated by C.Suthorn -- C.Suthorn (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C.Suthorn (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - This is really two different photos, so why isn't it presented as a set, rather than a composite photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, if you look at the file page and scroll down a bit, you see that it's a stereogram and how such images should be viewed. C.Suthorn should pehaps have written this in the nom info since such photos are quite rare here and people don't always read the whole file page before commenting. --Cart (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the info in the nomination. From the edit windows I can see that this ended up in CSS class wpImageAnnotatorFile and is shown as an alt tag/text on the nomination. Not very visible me thinks... --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have special glasses to view this kind of image? I don't think I'll vote on this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a wiggle version of the file, it doesn't need any glasses and it is linked from the file description page. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan and others, there is a way you can see this photo in 3D without special glasses. Pull up the photo on your phone and hold the phone so that it fills the screen. Hold you hand flat, fingers straight up, right between the two parts of the photo so it acts like a "wall" between them. Then look at the photo so close that your thumb touches your nose, that way you will only use one eye for each part of the picture, and it comes out in 3D. --Cart (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Now that I have used the phone trick to view the photo, I'll admit it is a cleverly constructed 3D thing, with him leaning forward from the chair and the Mona Lisa behind, you get three layers on the left and the book case acts like a continuous front-to-back reference on the right. --Cart (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Complicated. Can't see it, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both Cart's method and the wiggle file are uncomfortable for me. I~~'m tempted to oppose this kind of trick photography on that basis, but I~~'ll simply decline to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not some newfangled "trick photography", stereoscopy is an old and established method of creating 3D photos. View-Masters was something most kids had way back when (I loved mine). We need special programs to properly view 360-panoramas or they look really weird as ordinary photos; this is a similar thing where you need something extra to appreciate the photo properly. The panos are promoted regularly so I don't understand the adverse reactions to this. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there's a comfortable way to view them. This site needs a tool for fairly judging a stereoscopic photo. But without one, I can't judge this photo. You've reminded me: I looked through a view-master, too, when I was a kid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you're right, of course. I've seen 19th-century stereoscopic photos and should know better than to have made that silly remark above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Andrei (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just let my eyes cross and it works. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but then I see four guys with four paintings -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of steroscopic pictures: those for cross-eyed and those for wall-eyed vision. So if you choose the wrong sight (as you did by crossing your eyes), the depth of the background is inverted and disturbing. Therefore many stereos are signed with 'X' for cross- and '||' for wall-eyed vision. Here it is for wall-eyed vision, witch is unfortunately limited by the distance of your eyes. So if two conjugated points in the two picures are more distant than the distance of your eyes, you have to be Marty Feldmann to see it in 3D (or downsize the picture). Basically X-pictures like this or that, where you have to squint are more easyly to see and can be looked at over a wide scale of magnification. --PtrQs (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't get it – what's the point besides "it's 3D"? I mean, when somebody nominates a 360° spherical panorama, it's typically of a place that fore some reason lends itself to be shot in such a way. So what's the reason of choosing this person in the foreground, what does it/he have to do with La Gioconda and why are there two versions of the painting in the background? --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Prof. Carbon is the author of a scientific paper, whose main point is, that the version of the Mona Lisa from the Prado and the version from the Louvre (both painted at the same time in da Vinci's studio) together form a 500 year old stereogram. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like something from a Dan Brown novel. :) --Cart (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: did you get the point now? --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Suthorn: makes a lot of sense now, but that really needs to be part of the file description. This knowledge is essential for understanding the picture, it's the difference between "wtf?" and "this is genius!" … --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: added to file decription. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurasian eagle-owl (44088).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2019 at 22:42:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Strigiformes_(Owls)
Info Eurasian eagle-owl rescue at an event in New York. Created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "What big eyes you have..." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait! --Domob (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute --Cart (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 01:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top left corner lens flare is distracting, please fix it. Well done --Wilfredor (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is super sharp, but the people in the eye-reflections aren't helping Charles (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Owl take this one! Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support good picture --Fischer.H (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful portrait, IMO the best thing on this page at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good portrait. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beech Forest (AU), Great Otway National Park, Beauchamp Falls -- 2019 -- 1271.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2019 at 09:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 09:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 09:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support motion blur of the leaves on the right upper corner is a bit disturbing, but still an FP for me. Tomer T (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Tomer T. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A lot of the background is quite soft or even blurry (and I'm not even talking about the motion blur), since the focus is on the rocks in the front. But that makes sense to me, and it is a nice picture for sure. --Domob (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would prefer to give more darkness in the shadows to generate a better depth effect --Wilfredor (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sure, you're right. It's done. --XRay ^talk 18:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XRay Thanks for try fix it, however, I meant more to increase the texture by darkening the midtones, however, with the correction it seems that some areas that were formerly shadows with details became solid black. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes difficult with different types of monitors. I'd improved the midtones too. Now I've made modifications again, black to the former value and midtones a little bit darker. Hopefully it's OK. --XRay ^talk 05:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with the above that it's a bit soft in places, but the composition makes up for it. Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors look washed out, I'm afraid, with too many specular reflections. I think a polarizer could have helped. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ne reason for me to FP nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Planet Mercury diagram.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2019 at 09:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by A loose necktie - uploaded by A loose necktie - nominated by A loose necktie -- A loose necktie (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A loose necktie (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, the size of the texts are strange and not good layout. I would like to easily see what the different layer are, even at smaller image size, instead the less important text "All layers shown are proportional" (should suffice to say "Layers are proportional") is screaming at me. That text should be in the font size of the 'layer text' and the layer info in bigger font size. Also a bit too close crop on the left side. --Cart (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding the eggshell layers quite hard to visualise especially in the smaller thumb vs full browser. I think you haven't quite got the lighting to look realistic. The inner layers seem to be lit from below with a darker upper-two-thirds. But the outer layer has a strange dark stripe and is darker towards the top/bottom. The second layer on the right has an odd glare spot on it. The inner layer flat cut surface is oddly dark at the top and bottom, when I'd expect that fairly equally lit. The Solid anticrust looks quite different on the left to the right. The very thin white lines from the text to the subject are a bit randomly placed and vary in how close they go to the text or the subject. It isn't clear to me why the right is more exploded than the left, or why this method of looking at layers is helpful vs a more traditional cut like File:Saturn diagram.svg. This style seems to over-play the idea you can neatly separate the layers. I'm a bit confused why the thumnail shows a san-serif font but when I view the whole thing in Firefox, it is a serif font. Also the thumb's left rocky mantel is shown with a uniform yellow-brown vs a much darker brown in the full size on Firefox. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good job, however, the font size is too big --Wilfredor (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Prasüras,door het Val Trupchun naar Alp Purcher 18-09-2019. (d.j.b) 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2019 at 15:54:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info The bridge and the mountain path invite you to explore the Swiss National Park.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a nice idea with the bridge and the winding path in the background, but the composition still feels a bit unbalanced to me. The close and large bridge on the right seems a bit "too strong" for the very narrow and far away path on the left. --Domob (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Domob: you for your comment. You may find the alternative photo Better.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This might be a mere matter of taste so I don’t give an oppose for that – I just would love to see more to the left side (where the riverbed leads to). So shortly, the framing is too tight for me. This composition suggests the bridge being the main subject, exactly in the thirds, but then there’s too little visible of it. --Kreuz schnabel 14:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kreuzschnabel: you for your comment. You may find the alternative photo Better.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice composition. Cmao20 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ultimately, this one doesn't really work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good recording, but unfortunately for me no FP--Fischer.H (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, another version[edit]

Support--Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this version much better. I like the composition. --Dinkum (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry to spoil the party but I much prefer the other one. This is a much more conventional composition, and the bridge is quite small in the frame and looks a bit lost. Cmao20 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This one does work for me. My eye moves across the bridge, across the trees and then can go any number of ways, and I love how the stream is a diagonal that comes closer to bisecting this composition, but it's just low enough to work perfectly with the hills on the upper left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. I also love the fading-summer mood ... I want to follow those hikers down the path. Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A far better composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Much better! Another idea: What about a crop that is as wide as this, but only as high as the other? In other words, include more on the left, but not top/bottom. Maybe that would be the best balance? (But yeah, it is probably a matter of taste in the end.) --Domob (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: this photo was made with a focal point of 18 mm. The photo above has a focal length of 27 mm. That is zoomed in.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Bergtocht_van_Prasüras,door_het_Val_Trupchun_naar_Alp_Purcher_18-09-2019._(d.j.b)_04.jpg

File:Blick vom Feldstein auf Elleringhausen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2019 at 12:25:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info Autumn in the Sauerland. View from the Feldstein, the highest point of the Bruchhauser Steine. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure it's a nice view but I'm not really wowed by this image. There could be a bit more depth.--Peulle (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Peulle. It is a nice view and good quality, but just not special enough for me for a FP landscape. (In my opinion it is better than your other nomination, though, and only misses the cut closely.) --Domob (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bad but boring lighting, so no wow --Kreuz schnabel 18:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I do also prefer it to your other current nom, but the light is a bit flat and dull, I think you weren't lucky shooting on that day. Cmao20 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose undistinguished landscape, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead Trunk with Moss in Fallätsche.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2019 at 09:50:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Unsorted
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are already some FPs of tree stumps, but I personally like the decay on this one as well as the contrast between the green moss and the brown leaves in the background (and that it otherwise is a very simple composition). --Domob (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sharpness and detail level are not FP in my view, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Good subject, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately the place was quite steep and would not have allowed use of a tripod (but that is obviously not a reason to feature the picture if it seems insufficient in quality). --Domob (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice subject and idea but I’m not at all sold on the composition. There are few motifs that really benefit from a centered composition, and even fewer that look nice in a top-down view (which is the most frequent mistake in pics of children). Here, I’d prefer a lower viewpoint for a flatter viewing angle, so there’s more of the surrounding visible in the background, adding depth to the picture. --Kreuz schnabel 18:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just no wow. Nothing spectacular here in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback everyone! --Domob (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crokodille sunderban.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2019 at 06:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far off FP in composition (framing) and technical quality. And see note - cloning? Charles (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dof too shallow for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks sharpness --Fischer.H (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A spectacular sight but simply too little of it is in focus for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. The jaw with teeth is not sharp, and overall the composition is not too special for FP in my opinion. --Domob (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much unsharpness, color noise on the tail, and the tail itself sort of competes with the head as the subject. There are enough opposes that at this point the nomination should be withdrawn. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Extatosoma tiaratum - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 16:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was totally faked out by that insect in the thumbnail. Only when I looked at it on the screen could I see it wasn't plant matter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Angle is weird but quality great and subject peculiar Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Orientation. Very strange and off-putting. Charles (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The animal is hanging at the branches, this is the natural position (like slothes; slothes also have always a "very strange and off-putting orientation"!) --Llez (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ouster OS1-64 lidar point cloud of intersection of Folsom and Dore St, San Francisco.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 06:26:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 06:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 06:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might be valuable, but not outstanding. -- -donald- (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fascinating, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valuable is a good reason to support this as FP since one of the FP guidelines is: "Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others." dllu (t,c) 06:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it's more clearly relevant to COM:VIC, and regardless of the results here, I'd recommend finding a suitable scope for a VIC nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting, but for me not suitable for FPC. --Domob (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image is really interesting, but somewhen, the question could be: "What makes this image special in comparison with same-stlye images of other areas?" --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah! A screenshot from a 90s cyberpunk video game! :) Really, though, I think there's an issue here of us (or, I'll just speak for myself) not knowing enough about what to look for with an image like this. It's definitely visually interesting, so I'm a little torn. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For some context, you can compare it against a google image search for "lidar slam point cloud". You can also read my blog post on this topic for some discussion on the techniques used to create this. dllu (t,c) 21:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you can oppose per someone who didn't oppose and merely said that he isn't knowledgeable enough to know whether to support. dllu (t,c) 19:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I find it rather compelling. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do, too. After living with this photo for a time, I don't really understand the objections to it. It's a very good composition, really interesting to look at and a different way of experiencing the world. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protests opposing Bolivarian Revolution in São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2019 at 01:54:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990-now
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to support this, but there look to be a few stitching errors (in a couple of the flags, background on the right...). I can't annotate now, but will tomorrow if you haven't fixed them first. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I’ve pointed out the most obvious ones. --Kreuz schnabel 21:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow to me, sorry. Just a group of people on a political mission, nothing special. --Kreuz schnabel 07:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's well composed, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There aren’t many ways to miscompose a frontal shot of a lined-up group of ppl. They could have agreed before if the red or the yellow is the top side :) On the other hand, there are numerous stitching flaws, some of them deforming people. Not the best idea to take a multi-shot panoramic of a non-still subject. --Kreuz schnabel 14:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely makes sense about the problems of stitching photos of a moving subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Indeed a good composition, but not a FP for me. --Domob (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no wow for me. A group of people but visually nothing remarkable. --Dinkum (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support conditional on the stitching errors being fixed. I've learned that photos of protests/demonstrations/marches don't typically fare well at FPC. This is probably a better attempt than those I've nominated, but I'm not surprised by the opposition. Still, it's something I'd like to see more of here. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. Cmao20 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositionally, too random and chaotic. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dinkum --Fischer.H (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the two supporting votes have been given on condition of the stitching errors being fixed, which has not been done yet, this nomination may be considered failed because of no valid support after five days --Kreuz schnabel 15:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this photo is very important for me because of the greatest diaspora of Venezuelans and that there has been in any country in Latin America and in the world, surpassed only by Syria. However, I think that I will not have the time to correct this week the stitching errors. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that an oppose vote does not mean your picture is bad, or unimportant, or something like that. Furthermore, we do not judge the political importance of an image or the event it shows. We just judge image quality and originality, so any oppose just means the voter is not convinced that it’s one of the very best, finest, most breathtaking, cream-of-the-crop images we’ve got on Commons, the topmost 0.1 percent. --Kreuz schnabel 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eesti Üliõpilaste Seltsi maja, raamatukogu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2019 at 23:25:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Lauri Veerde - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please add a 360-degree panorama viewer link so the image can be properly viewed as intended? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Now added. Thanks! I didn't know it even existed here. Kruusamägi (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Domob (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture itself is already nice. Nice pano. -- -donald- (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find my favorite book.--Claus 08:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support And it would still be a cool picture if that was actually what it looked like ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong 360° pano with no obvious stitching errors. Cmao20 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! MartinD (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hermite Crab Dry Tortugas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2019 at 06:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Class_:_Malacostraca_(Malacostracans)
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, we only have one FP of a hermit crab, and none of a land-dwelling one (coenobita). I think this one is a nice addition to the other, and in my opinion good enough quality (although I do not yet have a lot of experience with close-up photography). --Domob (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI and VI, I think, but not enough wow for me for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition - on the leaf. Charles (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally find the simple composition with just the leaves (which I wouldn't expect as background for a hermit crab), the white shell and the red body quite nice, but that's of course just a matter of taste. And I have to admit that I'm not very experienced with either wildlife or closeup photography. --Domob (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel Case --Fischer.H (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A leaf is a good background for a land-dwelling crab. --Llez (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How big was this hermit crab? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe about 10cm including the shell and excluding the antennas (as in the picture). Certainly not a real "macro" shot (if that is what you are interested in). --Domob (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Weak oppose - I didn't really think this was a small hermit crab, but I thought I'd check. Looking at it at about life size (120% of full screen on my 13-inch laptop), it's not outstandingly sharp, so my feeling is that this is a good photo (and I think the composition is fine) but not a really outstanding one, considering the kinds of wildlife photos we feature, nowadays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Clearwater, Canterbury, New Zealand 15.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2019 at 08:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info All by me. It's Lake Clearwater in Canterbury, New Zealand. We already have this FP of the lake but I think this panorama is distinctive enough. -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I want to get a canoe or kayak and paddle across that lake now, except that it looks cold. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I hope you are getting checks from the New Zealand tourism board... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not the most successful composition in my view. Uninteresting bush in the center, aligned with the mountain. Cut lake. Lacks dynamism. However, I'm more on the support side, because the scenery is great -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Feel similar to Basil. The right two thirds isn't as strong as the left third, with the central bush and wedge of lake on the right. I'll suggest a crop which has imo much better composition and leading lines (which are interrupted by the bush in this one). -- Colin (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin Thanks for the review, you'll be right. I've provided an alternative. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The left is leaning down, it needs a perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Poco a poco I gave it a play, I think it's fixed now. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks indeed better, but you stopped kind of halway --Poco a poco (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 22:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I have no problems with the composition, really, but what looks like polarization has left the lake and bush looking slightly unnaturally darkened. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, another version[edit]

Oppose - Doesn't work for me. I love the great lateral/diagonal expanse in the other version. My eye doesn't move nearly as well around this picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that it neatly brackets the distant mountain range, and that the path, the coast, and the wind-streaks on the water form leading lines. -- Colin (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good, painterly composition. I'm not sure I like the panorama as much as the crop on the right seems somewhat arbitrary and aimless. Cmao20 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With the cut bush, a part seems missing at the right. Just a nice image, but not really spectacular in my view, and in any case inferior to the one above. Actually I quite like the first version (will move to weak support if necessary), especially the highest mountains. The problem is the bush. I think you could have arranged the composition within the frame better, for example by putting this bush more to the right, and your camera higher with you climbing to the left, to get a better balance and a more satisfying harmony of the several elements composing the image -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)

The chosen alternative is: File:Lake Clearwater, Canterbury, New Zealand 15.jpg

File:ODEEP ONE (ship, 1986), Sète.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2019 at 20:20:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dispersion stars are nice (although they seem a bit too much for me), but otherwise the picture just seems too ordinary (and quite noisy) for FP. --Domob (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the stars are caused by diffraction, not dispersion. But I agree, not sure why f/16 was used. dllu (t,c) 07:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't wowed at the first sight but after a few seconds of looking at the picture I did get wowed :) --Podzemnik (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reflection of lights, well, but the main subject is unclear. Ship hidden in the darkness. Overall not special enough. Quality image but no wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Domob. Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree with all the opposing arguments above and would like to support, but would you consider cropping a little closer on the left to avoid having so many stray rays there? Or failing that, would it look good to crop further to the left and include that light source, if possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney (AU), Opera House -- 2019 -- 3049.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2019 at 14:58:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 14:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 14:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting view, but for me this composition does not really work. I would like to have "something more". Sorry. --Domob (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just have to say, this looks like a worm's-eye view of the world's largest bustier. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Domob.--Peulle (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Domob. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what you were going for and I like to see abstract stuff like this at FPC, but this one doesn't work for me. The various crops just look a bit awkward, and I've seen better studies of shapes, lines and colours than this. Cmao20 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think it is better to withdraw. --XRay ^talk 17:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--XRay ^talk 17:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de Salzburgo, Salzburgo, Austria, 2019-05-19, DD 27-29 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 19:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Dome of Salzburg Cathedral, Austria. The cathedral was founded in 774 and rebuilt in 1181 after a fire but it become its present Baroque style appearance under Prince-Bishop Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau in the 17th century. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support dllu (t,c) 07:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely again. Cmao20 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gliophorus chromolimoneus - Ferndale Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 13:41:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Order_:_Agaricales_(Gilled_Mushrooms)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Domob (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice aspect, shape, texture, color. Excellent quality. Well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone. Really impressive detail, good light and color, pretty mushrooms, and well-placed on the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good sharpness and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Istenberg mit Bruchhauser Steinen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2019 at 18:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info Autumn in the Sauerland below the Bruchhauser Steine. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors are not bad, but the composition is uninspiring. The foreground does not lead into the background, nothing to capture the viewer's attention. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per King of Hearts. It is a nice and pleasing shot, but nothing very special. --Domob (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, plus most parts of the rocks being in the shadow. To me, this is just the standard walker’s view of them :) The leftmost one is the Bornstein. --Kreuz schnabel 08:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; just a typical autumn landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty and good quality but IMO not an outstanding composition. Cmao20 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maison Carree in Nimes (9).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 14:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Other architectural elements
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image was awarded the 7th prize in the national contest of France in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019. Tournasol7 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's a nice picture, but for me the very tight bottom crop doesn't work well (it looks incomplete). --Domob (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2019 (UC)
Oppose I don't find this special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe this motif could produce an FP with the right crop, but I don't think this is it. However, it might be a good VI, depending on its competition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop doesn't work for me, with the cut-off bit on the right hand side. Good quality image though and I second Ikan's comments that it may well be VI. Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boiga nigriceps Red cat snake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2019 at 07:20:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Colubridae (Colubrids)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sharp head and really fun composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent. Charles (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like it.--Claus 12:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claus, did you mean to support? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the composition. Ahmad^talk 22:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Colubridae (Colubrids)

File:Bruderwald Birnen-Stäubling (Lycoperdon pyriforme)-RM-20191014-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 22:03:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Agaricaceae
Info Pear-shaped puffball or stump puffball (Lycoperdon pyriforme) in the Bruderwald in Bamberg. Focus stack of 16 images. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job, though I'd rotate a tiny bit. Charles (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and excellent sharpness -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support … and seven. --Kreuz schnabel 07:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Domob (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 18:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, this one does stand out from other mushroom pics. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Жовна зелена (Picus viridis).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2019 at 09:31:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Piciformes_(Woodpeckers_and_Relatives)
Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shows very clearly how woodpeckers use their tails for support. Charles (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really valuable image, too. Unless there's anything that shows this scope better (which I doubt), this should be nominated for VI, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 18:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles, very valuable and also high quality. Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Andrei, this category is not specific enough. Please add the type of bird to the category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Andrei (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artamus superciliosus male 2 - Bushells Lagoon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2019 at 13:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support good picture --Fischer.H (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I guess that's a bee in his beak? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one looks like a spider to me, the other perhaps nematocera. --Ivar (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yum! -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bright on the white part of the head, but that's such a small part of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 16:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Korn Rade IMG 2491.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2019 at 18:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family/Caryophyllaceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not quite sure what to make of this picture. Very pleasing colours and nice composition, but somehow it does not "wow" me enough for a support. At least not yet. --Domob (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good picture, but the bar for flower FPs is IMO very high, and this photo has a distracting background to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours, but a bit noisy, and the background is distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:L.A. Ring, Snebillede. Sankt Jørgensbjerg, 1915. Privateje. Særudstillingen 'Kunstnerbrødre. L.A. Ring & H.A.Brendekilde' Nivaagaards Malerisamling 22.9.19-26.1.20.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2019 at 19:37:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors
Info created by Laurits Andersen Ring - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In first instance I wanted to oppose the photo because I did not see anything special about the composition. However after I opened the photo, I realize it is is a painting. So, well done --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, but I certainly believe that the lack of an interesting composition is a valid reason to oppose a feature for a picture of a painting, or to simply not vote to support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no reason for me to FP nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A painting should not become FP just because it is a painting by a notable artist. I don't see anything remarkable about it that would warrant a feature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the grounds that it is a well-done photo of a painting. We're not !voting on the painting itself. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This painting is well-photographed and certainly would be QI. For FP, the whole visual effect has to say "wow" to me and unfortunately, it does not. Sorry. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The painting is lovely, it's working for me. The resolution is good too. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reichtstag, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 31-33 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 21:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info Night view of the Reichstag, a historic edifice in Berlin, Germany, constructed to house the Imperial Diet of the German Empire. It was opened in 1894 and housed the Diet until 1933, when it was severely damaged after being set on fire. After World War II, the building fell into disuse; the parliament of the German Democratic Republic met in the Palast der Republik in East Berlin, while the parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany (the Bundestag) met in the Bundeshaus in Bonn. The ruined building was restaurated after German reunification on 3 October 1990, when it underwent a reconstruction led by architect Norman Foster. After its completion in 1999, it once again became the meeting place of the German parliament: the modern Bundestag. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit windy. Charles (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some ghosts above the hedges in the bottom-right — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites: I removed those HDR artifacts, --Poco a poco (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Strong sky noise, f/5 could be more acurrate and faster to get a sharp image, a bit small if you see the camera used. Everything fixable --Wilfredor (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfredor: I've reduced the noise. The f/11 is the optimal setting for the lens I used. Poco a poco (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- while the quality is acceptable in most parts of the image, some parts appear to have too strong noise reduction, causing some elements to blend into the sky. For example, the two objects on either side of the dome. Also, I find the dynamic range insufficient for dark parts of the scene (despite HDR having been used). For comparison, File:Reichstag zur blauen Stunde, Berlin-Mitte, 1705312210, ako.jpg has much better details in the shadows as it was taken at blue hour, and it is also generally sharper thanks to the superior lens used. However, I do appreciate the longer focal length used in this photo, allowing the dome to be much more prominent. dllu (t,c) 07:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per dllu, this not finest on Commons. --Ivar (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per dllu. Other picture is far superior in sharpness, details, lighting and timing (blue hour prevents the foreground grass from disappearing into black, and creates better background for the building. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin; also, there's this sort of halo around the building that makes some of the more distant details of the rear roof look more drawn than photographed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per dllu. I would have supported if dllu hadn't linked to the other shot, but that one is unfortunately definitely superior, and so I don't think this is really the best on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:The coast of Crete Sea near Chania. Crete, Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2019 at 12:13:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, I suppose, but I'm not seeing any big wow factor here.--Peulle (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Nice but nothing that special. --Kreuz schnabel 14:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per the others. Also, for a FP of a scene like this, I would expect the rocks in the foreground to be sharp. --Domob (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Definitely a nice picture, but nothing so outstanding as to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and Domob. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a nice dramatic shot and I wouldn't get discouraged by the number of opposes here, it's not too far away and is deservedly QI. It just doesn't have anything really special in light or composition. Cmao20 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you all for your ratings and comments. --Ввласенко (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corsica-geographic map-fr.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2019 at 21:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by ikonact - uploaded by ikonact - nominated by Ikonact -- Ikonact (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikonact (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't have the expertise about Corsica that I have about New York State or some other areas, but this looks fairly comprehensive, and it's definitely elegant and clear. I do see a few rivers (rivières en français) that look long enough for names to be added, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thanks. I am glad that I managed to achieve the state of comprehensive maps thanks to yours and other comments in the previous nomination :) I will add missing names on rivers. --Ikonact (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question You have made many maps that are generally automatically generated by computer. What makes this map special?. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: you are right, the maps are generated by computer but it is far from "automatic". I coded the software to generate the maps, I gathered and processed various data sources and spent hours to finalise the map and put the names and symbols in place. But what makes this map special? Nothing really. I liked this one out of all those I created because it looks nice and has a lot of details.--Ikonact (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question per Wilfredor. If we feature this map, what would keep entire Category:Topographic_maps from being nominated in the future? --Kreuz schnabel 12:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel: This map is not really like all maps in Category:Topographic_maps. This map is fully vector and respects Wikipedia map conventions. There are few maps like this. --Ikonact (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzschnabel, further to Ikonact's response: There is a great variety of maps in that category. Many are not featurable on account of size or lack of detail. Which others do you think we'd be obligated to feature if we feature this one? And to all the opposers: What do you find lacking in this map that makes it not excellent? As a long-time geography buff who used to collect the best atlases I could find, I appreciate this as an excellent map of its subject, the entire island of Corsica. It's certainly possible to have more detail: I've seen maps that show every house and had maps like that in the 1970s. But choices have to be made about the scale you will use and the level of detail that can be reasonably and clearly covered at that scale. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not an excellent picture for me --Fischer.H (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The maps physical layers of topography, barymetry and shades are vectorial, which is by itself a feast. The map follows wikipedia maps conventions (best practices) : our topographic maps convention, exchange-road maps conventions, map icons toolbox. Human layers are properly fetched from OSM or other sources, while time consuming hand-made corrections have very likely been done to avoid labels collisions. Legend is properly done, coordinates and North are defined via the grid system which is the most accurate approach. The whole file is made of well organized 22 vector layers, easy to reuse in and outside Wikipedia, and easy to translate. The file size could be reduced via path simplifications, but with 13MB, we are at a very acceptable and workable file size. The whole map (end result) and technique used (process) is a feast. Cheer up to Ikonact, we need more maps of such quality. Yug (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bathymetry contours (and probably even rivers, but not so clearly visible, I think only bathymetry is problematic) are made by polygonal chain, not by spline (they are natural features, they dont have straight line segments divided by angles, so they need to be represented in other way). Some labelling placed wrongly (for example Linguizetta, Grosseto, Sarténe) and generally, labeling could be better readable if it would have some character framing. Symbol for mountain pass seems to me too long and it is placed little bit wrongly in some cases (Col de Verde, Col de Vizzavona). All of these are fixable I hope and otherwise it could be featured picture in my perspective. --Grtek (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grtek: Thanks for the comments. I tried to address them in a new version of the map. --Ikonact (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a clear improvement. I still think there's room for a few more rivers to be labeled. One small detail: Col. de Vergio is not clearly labeled now, because the red road overlaps one side of the now-smaller mountain pass symbol. I'm not sure what you should do about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Better now. But I still think that some character framing in labels could be improvement. And you changed col symbol in map but not in legend. And I would move legend frame little bit up, so space from bottom and right map edge would be the same. And move hypsometry legend little bit left so left edge of scale frame would "continue" as left edge of hypsometry legend. And then (maybe) move hypsometry legend little bit up so space between left map edge and scale frame would be the same. And last thing that I see now – unit label in scale is usually placed after highest number in scale. So after number 20, not between numbers. But yours non-standard solution doesnt bother me so much.--Grtek (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Supplemented --Grtek (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grtek: , @Ikan Kekek: I uploaded a new version. Hope this answers your remarks. Thanks--Ikonact (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further improvements. I wish more people would support, but you've certainly made the map more valuable. It should definitely be nominated at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, you did really great job. --Grtek (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is very detailed and it would be nice to have more such maps. --Spasimir (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A tourist lady in Jameh Mosque of Isfahan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2019 at 07:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry lady doesn't work for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iifar: blurry person in architectural photography for show scales not problem--Amirpashaei (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more I think about it, the blurry person doesn't actually bother me. It is indeed good for showing the scale. Cmao20 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20. --Pugilist (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice compo, but the blurry lady plus the blown areas at her feet and at the windows, chromatic aberration on the brickwork. Difficult scene that might require at least three combined shots (lady, overall, windows) to make it really good. --Cart (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I pixel-peep, she's blurry. At full screen she's fine and like a painting all primary colours (yellow, red, blue). She's standing exactly in the spots of light from the window, and framed by the arch in the rear wall. And the brickwork with spirals and diagonals is well described with light cement contrasting. Yes I wish the glare from the window was handled better, but it can be really hard when you point your lens straight at a bright window. I do hope she isn't photoshopped in. Could you save your JPG with some EXIF data and an embedded colourspace please. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretfully I agree with Cart... Tournasol7 (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @W.carter: , @Colin: , @Tournasol7: , @Iifar: , you're right. thanks for your nice critiques. I improved the light. I fixed chromatic aberration and I improved blurry lady. I think because the picture merged from 3 shots(HDR)photoshop cant save file with EXIF.--Amirpashaei (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's better, move to Support. For the exif, you can take one of the photos and add this as a top layer to it and merge into one. I know it will not cover all three shots, but it will be close enough and better that no exif. --Cart (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so worried about the EXIF data for camera lens, exposure, etc (though it is nice to add that detail for a complex shot to the description). You may have lost the colour profile when doing the HDR so may have to assign one again (e.g. sRGB) and don't use Photoshop's 'save for web' but instead use the save option that preserves exif. That way the image has a colour profile and we all see the same colours. Btw, it is a shame the lady's primary colours are not so vivid in the new version. Perhaps that is realistic, though -- you can judge from your individual exposures. What are you using for HDR? --Colin (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: thanks again Mr carter . The way you said it didn't work. the photo taken with 24mm tilt shift lens. 6D canon. f:14 , iso 100, exposure time (2,4,8) seconds.--Amirpashaei (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, it usually works for me. I've added the Template:Photo Information to the file, you can use that instead. I've filled in some of what you wrote here, but please correct if I got something wrong and feel free to fill in the rest. Also, I'm a "Miss" not a "Mr". :-) --Cart (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me Miss carter for my mistake. thanks for your useful information and your kindness.--Amirpashaei (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Better now but still has a lot of CA. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case: I fixed chromatic aberration Mr Case. is this OK?--Amirpashaei (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Poco a poco: I fixed chromatic aberration, blurry lady and artifact. is this another problem Mr Silva?--Amirpashaei (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many improvements since the original nomination. OK for me. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noting special. -- Karelj (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Châteaux du Pays cathare - Château de Quéribus - 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2019 at 11:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, funny idea, but image quality on the landscape is mediocre, and the flashlit masonry taking up 75 percent of the frame doesn’t look really nice. --Kreuz schnabel 12:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the idea is very good and the implementation successful --Milseburg (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Executed pretty well, I think. The resolution is sufficient that the frame-in-a-frame doesn't suffer too much. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect quality but overall a good idea well done. Cmao20 (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea, and to me the quality of the landscape is certainly good enough. --Domob (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's a nice idea but I don't get wowed neither by the landscape or by the wall. The wall seems to be a bit overcooked (direct flash I guess?) and the landscape doesn't have a straight point too look at. I wish there was a more distinctive feature like here. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel and Podzemnik. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Podzemnik Poco a poco (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question a tighter crop? see note. Charles (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Crop as suggested by Charles --Llez (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This composition really works for me. Sharpness is not optimal, etc., but it's good enough for me to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much better, but the harsh flashlight on the inside wall at almost the same brightness as the sunlit parts still doesn’t appeal to me. Just looks unreal, can’t be "true", there’s two competing light sources here that won’t mix. Flashlight reduced to ⅛ or even less (plus softener) might have worked. --Kreuz schnabel 07:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think I could support this if something were done to dim the flash on the wall. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Flash dimmed as proposed --Llez (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support either — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better Charles (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also support this one. --Domob (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So close to the opening I get scared of falling out. But I also support this version. --Milseburg (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues here. Cmao20 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Châteaux du Pays cathare - Château de Quéribus - 04a.jpg

File:Fin Garden Kushak.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2019 at 07:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment strange artefacts on the water, how is this photo taken? No metadata either. --Ivar (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iifar: thanks. you're right. I adjusted artifacts problem. this is an HDR panorama picture with 24mm tilt shift lens--Amirpashaei (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the composition is very good and the subject interesting, so it works well as a thumbnail, but there are technical issues at full size. There's chromatic aberration (a bit in the water, a lot in the trees) and some artifacts on the people in the background. The interior quality is good for FP IMO, nice high resolution, but the outside light is really harsh and has lost some detail. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: thanks. you're right . I fixed chromatic aberration. and I fixed artifacts on the people too.--Amirpashaei (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Ultimately too soft and the trees outside a little overexposed. It seems like there was a long exposure, which might better explain this, but in the absence of metadata we can't know. Weak support now Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Daniel. I also feel like the colors outside the structure are a little off. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: , **@Daniel Case: , thanks for your useful critiques. I improved the light in exterior section. say to me if another improvement needed. I took this picture with 5 frame with tilt shift lens and every frame contain 5 pictures with difference of levels of exposure. (HDR panorama). 6D canon. 24 mm tilt shift lens. iso 100. f:14 exposure time (1/30 , 1/15 , 1/8 , 1/4, 1/2 ). --Amirpashaei (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That looks much better. Do you think it's a true representation of what you saw? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: thanks Mr kekek. yes. exactly same as what I saw--Amirpashaei (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well then it has my approval. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks for the fixes. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Amirpashaei, I think your category is too general. You should add "#Iran" at the end. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: thanks Mr kekek. I added iran to category--Amirpashaei (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in your other nominee? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I will add to them too--Amirpashaei (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When are you planning on doing that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did it but I think I did it wrong. I will try again tomorrow Mr kekek.--Amirpashaei (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Personally don't like the yellow rectangle reflection on the lower left corner of picture. --Gnosis (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Passerelle Debilly, Paris 5 November 2019.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2019 at 12:38:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Ali Sabbagh (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bridge is nice but the image doesn't seem very outstanding for me. IMO if you include that much sky, it should be interesting enough. Please remove the CAs. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Baso (and nice to see you, man; it feels like it's been a while). Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the above. I also find the image quality a little mediocre with some CA visible in the water. Good image overall, but not FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. Quite good (although not outstanding) quality and an interesting bridge, but not special enough for FP. --Domob (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; also noticeable CA near sides. Might have worked, at least better, in direct sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018 01 (Blue) - Chaouen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2019 at 17:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
Info created and uploaded by Fbrandao.1963 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Liking this - really interesting architecture. Cmao20 (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two angels on my shoulder with this image - one wants to take away the doorstep carpet on the right to emphasize the blue theme; the other likes the carpet for the contrast it brings. Both agree that the image would benefit if the blip in the top right (marked with note) were cropped out. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question How do we know if the white balance is set correctly in an image like this? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the white balance is correct in a golden hour or sunset photo? Light is always subjective to the mood in the photo. Anyway, there are white details (albeight a bit yellowed with age) in both light and shadow in this photo (electrical wire and landline phone detalis) and things seems to be very "accurate" in this case. --Cart (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King of In the image metadata show "White balance: Auto white balance". From my point of view, the camera found everything very golden or yellow due to the golden moment and I try to correct it by adding too much blue to the image. Cart, relativist fallacy is useful for anything, which means that it does not serve to explain anything in specific. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure where you are going with that comment. I mentioned the white objects since they can be used to check the WB. Seeing "white balance: Auto white balance" in the meta doesn't mean anything since it can be altered in post editing. Btw, check out the other photos in the category, Flickr and the article Chefchaouen about these blue houses. There seems to be a global conspiracy about wrong WB for these houses, or else they really are very blue. ;-) --Cart (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cart you've convinced me --Wilfredor (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've no idea if the blue is natural, but, yes or no, it doesn't appeal. Charles (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whites look yellowish to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support; would be fuller support if cropped as suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, I might support the suggested crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles. The scene is nice, but the blue certainly bothers me a lot. --Domob (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused. Chefchaouen is known as the "Blue City". Does it bother you that you're looking at blue, or are you unconvinced the blue is real? I guess if you don't like looking at this much blue, it's a matter of taste, but if you look through Category:Chefchaouen, you sure will see a lot of blue. It's real, alright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't look real to me on the picture, but I well believe you it may be true. However, even in that case, the blue tone doesn't appeal to me, so that this may be a VI or QI but not FP (for my taste). --Domob (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition isn´t convincing me. --Milseburg (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Steam engine in Karchowice (Karchowitz).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2019 at 20:52:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very dark, haze in the background, nothing distinguishable -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Nice mood but all I see is a noisy image of cut-off machinery in hazy conditions and poor contrast. Verticals are irritatingly leaning out (at least the lamp chain should be perpendicular). I can’t see any excellent photographic work here. Sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 09:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whatever the outcome, I think the lamp chain should be vertical. Unless it is intended to oscillate like a pendulum :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I like the mood very much but the haziness of everything is a bit distracting. Cmao20 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice mood, but overall the picture is not FP for me (per the others). --Domob (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support darkness adds to the mood. Tomer T (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:A painting in Chehel Sotoun1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2019 at 13:57:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That painting is wonderful. This is a good picture, but it's so very small for a 2019 FP. Is there possibly a bigger version? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: no Mr kekek. because of correction of perspective error losted the huge part of picture. I will take big picture later. if this picture is short i will withdraw it.--Amirpashaei (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan, but File:Painting in Chehel Sotoun2.jpg might be worth a try (as a new nomination, not "Alternative" of course). --A.Savin 16:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @A.Savin: thanks Mr Savin for your good offer .--Amirpashaei (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination.--Amirpashaei (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mediaeval Screenwork, North, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2019 at 18:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
Info Technically a church interior, but something different from the usual FP fare. IMO good quality and lots of interesting details. created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question haven't we had one like this recently? 20:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I certainly haven't nominated anything like this lately, but we may have had something of the kind, I honestly don't recall. If anyone can find a similar nom please link to it, but I don't see any other FPs of this subject from my own search. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Certainly good quality and deservedly QI but I can’t see anything wowy here. --Kreuz schnabel 23:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. Good and valuable picture, but nothing too special for FP. --Domob (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination No problem. Thanks for all the reviews. Cmao20 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirque de Navacelles (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 15:02:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the composition with the road :) I think it’d work even better with the building on the left cropped out, so the cliffs on the left and right look symmetric. --Kreuz schnabel 15:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The composition is indeed very nice (although I agree with Kreuzschnabel that the building should perhaps be removed completely), but I find the picture (especially some parts of it, e.g. in the right -- maybe a bad frame?) too soft. --Domob (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To me, none of it is that sharp for a panorama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this image shows an issue which I sometimes have with your (very good) work, that it doesn't seem to have a whole lot of contrast. It looks a bit like what would happen if you pulled the shadows up and the highlights back, so that the image has a lot of midtones but no real light/dark areas. I also think it's a bit less sharp than your usual and could maybe do with less NR. I do like the composition though. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been there and tried to make a panoramic myself, but I found it quite difficult. So I think this one passes the test with pretty good marks. MartinD (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helmmycena (Mycena galericulata) (d.j.b.) 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 16:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Mycenaceae
Info Bottom of one Mycena galericulata on a half-decayed tree stump. Only 24 millimeters in diameter.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wet-blanket oppose Doesn't really stand out compositionally to me from other pictures of mushrooms. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --El Grafo (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, DoF is sufficient, and nice background. Cmao20 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no reason for FP according me. -- Karelj (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Morning at Tham Sakoen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2019 at 18:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Thailand
Info A spectacular image of natural beauty, and one which did well in Wiki Loves Earth 2019. created by Jane3030 - uploaded by Jane3030 - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice atmosphere. Charles (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Please remove the dust spots --Wilfredor (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes to what Wilfredor said above. I will vote for this when the spots are removed, but if they aren't removed, I would sadly have to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. Charles (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain I have solved this problem as when I viewed it at full size I'm afraid I couldn't see huge numbers of dust spots. I saw a few darker smudges caused by dirt on the lens, but not a massive number of obvious spots. That said I think the problem is sorted, so @Ikan Kekek: , @Charlesjsharp: , @Wilfredor: , could you take a look and see whether it is any better? If not, I would appreciate a more specific note about where you can still see dust spots. Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you got most of them, but I still see a big one where I just marked it. Have a look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It took me three minutes, but I've finally found something that could be (maybe? maybe not) a very tiny dust spot (almost invisible). Good luck, Cmao20 :-) Almost all paintings in every museum also contain some very small bristles of the brush, lost and mixed with the painting. Some even say these bristles belong to the beard of the famous masters. When I was young, it was a challenge to chase them, by sticking my eyes very close to the canvas, but I'm not sure the guards would have let me remove them -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The haze creates a nice atmosphere --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking, wow! Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool Poco a poco (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Ikan Kekek, Charlesjsharp, and Wilfredor: more dust spots removed. --Ivar (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ivar, well done. Cmao20 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support. Beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice mood and light! --Domob (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd oppose this except the support is so strong but I don't see what makes this a great photo; dull light, one spot is over exposed, and it's unsharp. Seven Pandas (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta mulatta), male, Gokarna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 18:08:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice picture. He looks rather irritated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. He was sitting on his own. Charles (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Certainly a nice picture, but it doesn't look very special to me. Also it is quite soft, at least compared to some of your other spectacular wildlife shots. --Domob (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Domob -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice one.--Nirmal Dulal (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it could do with a tad more sharpening, but it's great considering the size. I'd rather slightly soft than oversharpened any day, at least too little sharpening can easily be fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)

File:Mandelbox 360 20191218 02.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2019 at 12:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info An example for a panoramic interior view of a en:Mandelbox (panoviewer in the description) created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not all that wowed ... so much of it is dark and what isn't doesn't stand out to me all that much. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of jagged edges and the background has been removed sloppily.--Peulle (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info@Peulle The jagged edges are a typical property of the Mandelbox and the background was not removed, but the dark (=transparent) areas are areas, where you can look out of the Mandelbox. The image was not edited. It is the pure view that you can get when you navigate to that point in the Mandelbox. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

An mathematical more harmonic image, that might hopefully fix the problems (other versions given in the description) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a proper 'Alt' (crop or alteration of the first image), but a completely different image. You need to place this in a new nomination, please. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright, thanks for the hint :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Kakadu (AU), Kakadu National Park, Yellow Water -- 2019 -- 3782.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2019 at 06:17:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deserves a feature for composition but there seems to be a general sharpness issue about your Australian images. This is so soft I have to downscale to 50 percent to get it crisp sharp – well, that’s still around 7 megapixels. Can anything be done about the overexposed trees on the left background? They somehow spoil it a bit. --Kreuz schnabel 07:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just two answers: First, the trees. The tree trunks are very bright, nearly without a dark bark - like a lot of trees in Australia. It was early in the morning and the sunlight is on the trees too. So I can't see an overexposed trunk. Sorry. Second, the sharpness. Yes, the photo was made without tripod. Yes, it was made sitting on a small (and swaying) boat. So 1/125 s may be a little bit long. Looking at pixel level there may be a quantum of blur. I've seen this starting with a 30 mpx camera. It's the limit of what affordable lenses can do. And additionally I used other sharpness parameters with Adobe Lightroom. I can improve this sharpness, but IMO it's not really an issue. --XRay ^talk 09:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find no fault with the sharpness. The nearby trees and reflections are sharp. The background is somewhat unsharp at full size but IMO fine. I wanted to give my input on that now, although I'm not yet ready to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'll improve sharpness and midtone brightness as soon as possible. I'll to do this until tomorrow. --XRay ^talk 12:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done The improvements are done ... --XRay ^talk 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Just nice, but not really an amazing picture in my view. Water reflection is very ordinary. The sky is a bit boring. I miss something extra -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Would you consider offering a crop with just the clump of trees by the lake and their reflection? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't think so. IMO 2:1 is a good choice. The trees at the left give depth. --XRay ^talk 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But my suggested alternative would create a tighter composition. Photographer's choice, though. I will consider what I have in front of me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas are always good. I'll try it and if it is good enough, I'll upload the extracted image. OK? --XRay ^talk 07:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of you to say, but it's completely up to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

And here it is, the crop Ikan Kekek proposed. Thank you! --XRay ^talk 14:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is actually a better crop than I was thinking of. I find this composition harmonious. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support I still think the tree at left could be cropped out, but it doesn't bother me enough to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight at the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, and Basile Morin: It's now square format. --XRay ^talk 06:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm inclined to still support, but I preferred your previous crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sorry, I'm dissatisfied with the square format too. So I reverted it back to the former crop. But I'll upload (but not nominate) the square format too. --XRay ^talk 11:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support this version only; the other has too much empty space where nothing is going on. Cmao20 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuluujaak Mountain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2019 at 01:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info: Nuluujaak Mountain, bathed by warm colours of the setting sun, belying the cold that has already gripped the Arctic Cordillera in Nunavut. All by me. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. Charles (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pano with good quality and subtle light. Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nothing too special, but the light and scenery is lovely. --Domob (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support me everything is right on this photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 16:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Otherworldly. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Darwin (AU), Stokes Hill Wharf -- 2019 -- 4362.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2019 at 06:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just an information: The objects in the front are in the sun, the background is dark because of the rain clouds. Wonderful light conditions. --XRay ^talk 09:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect light, perfect sky, perfect colours. I really like this a lot. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBijay chaurasia (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basotxerri. This is my favourite of your recent nominations. Cmao20 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Indeed nice sky and light, but I personally miss something special here for full support. --Domob (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see little point in opposing an overwhelming consensus, but I don't really get it. It's a good image, but nothing amazing to move my eyes around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great collection of elements in good light. Well balanced. --Cart (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the minimalism. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eesti Üliõpilaste Seltsi maja, vapituba.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2019 at 15:01:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Lauri Veerde - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, another FP for 360 collection --Wilfredor (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special IMO. —kallerna (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - @Kruusamägi: just curious: what equipment are you using to take these? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the photographer, Lauri Veerde is. I don't know what equipment does he use. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technically outstanding. But I do not find the room itself very interesting. Especially the ceiling is rather boring. --Milseburg (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Milseburg. --Domob (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Milseburg. Good shot technically but I find it a little dull compared to many 360-degree panos we've seen here. Cmao20 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna. -- Karelj (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abbaye Saint-Michel de Cuxa - Jesus on the Mount of Olives 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2019 at 10:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info Jesus and the sleeping disciples on the Mount of Olives in the main church of the Abbey of Saint-Michel-de-Cuxa, Codalet, Pyrénées-Orientales department, France. The figurines date from the 15th century. Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a nice image for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, a nice picture. --Domob (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amazon d'argile.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2019 at 11:48:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info Rural representation of clay men and women during the carnival in Martinique, France, created by Steeven ROYAL Photography - uploaded by Steeven ROYAL Photography - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very interesting motif just about outweighs mediocre image quality and resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. -- Karelj (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose head is chopped at top for no reason.--BevinKacon (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyrtodactylus interdigitalis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2019 at 06:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Gekkonidae_(Geckos)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Poco a poco (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How big is that? Impressive closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, superb sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Gekkonidae_(Geckos)

File:Spb StMichael Castle asv2019-09 img11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2019 at 13:20:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Oval Hall of Saint Michael's Castle, Saint Petersburg. All by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty, well-composed, excellent light management. A few places might be slightly sharper, such as the ceiling decorations that are partly covered by the "candlelights", but overall, I think this is quite clearly an FP by 2019 standards. Is there something I'm missing that's causing anyone to hesitate to support? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great, excellent -- Je-str (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The very tight cut on the lettering at the top left is disadvantageous --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could be sharper in some places, but overall interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good but the hall is not really wowing to me Poco a poco (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Untere Stuhllochscharte.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2019 at 15:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
Info created by Grtek - uploaded by Grtek - nominated by Grtek -- Grtek (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Grtek (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 18:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unusual. But I can not take any information from this image, which is really inspiring me or help me to learn anything about this gap. Nothing special about the Gosaukamm. Interchangeable. It could be anywhere in the high mountains. --Milseburg (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this because I really feel the cold and desolation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice candidate for BW conversion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Milsebug + I do not support BW-images in repositories like Commons. —kallerna (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but if more people felt like you, FPC would be even deader - from an artistic / truly photographic point of view - than it already is (I've always wanted to use this comparative ). We're rapidly turning into a sterile, formalistic, pixel peeping tech forum that doesn't really care about unique perspectives - literally and figuratively - or bold approaches. Just my two cents. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, truer words have seldom been spoken here! --Cart (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other side: I think lately too little attention has been paid to whether the candidates have an outstanding benefit in the encyclopedic projects. Sober, factual presentations have a harder time compared to images whose artistic aspect repress the factual. --Milseburg (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, Commons serves a media repository for wikis of all kinds and scopes. But there is certainly no lack of straightforward, high quality depictions of the factual world (cityscapes, nature, animals...). Yet Commons could and should be so, so much more...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the little motes of snow dance in the sun ... something that you can only see when pixel-peeping, and something the black and white makes better. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Commons should encompass all kinds of quality material, not just what is suitable for an encyclopedia. This is a high quality shot that illustrates good use of B&W very well. Cmao20 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed, but we also don't know which good photos may serve an encyclopedia well. There have been hilarious cases of photos that had a hard time as unsuitable for an encyclopedia that ended up illustrating Wikipedia articles very well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's excellent. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pato aguja africano (Anhinga rufa), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 47.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 16:40:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Suliformes
Info African darter (Anhinga rufa) just after getting a fish in the Chobe River, Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/n/u by me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm aware that the sharpness could be better, but I still find it a very interesting action shot of wildlife -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose true, it's very interesting, but sadly sharpness is not up to FP level. --Ivar (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- unsharp Seven Pandas (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I don't think it's sharp enough. A shame, as it's a great capture. Cmao20 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose The quality is as disappointing as the catch is gorgeous -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fantoft stavkirke, Bergen, Noruega, 2019-09-08, DD 81-83 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 17:02:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Norway
Info Fantoft Stave Church, Bergen, Norway. Originally built around 1150 at Fortun in Sogn, a village near the inner or eastern end of Sognefjord, it was constructed in 1879, as a replacement for the medieval stave church. Fantoft Stave Church was bought by consul Fredrik Georg Gade and saved by moving it in pieces to Fana near Bergen in 1883, as Fantoft Stave Church was threatened with demolition, in similar way to hundreds of other stave churches in Norway. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting place but there's some weird haloes going on at the top of the church. I would support if this can be fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you got an alternative without the leaves? Charles (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That would be a different image requiring a different nomination. --Kreuz schnabel 20:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in spite of rather good detail on the church itself. But the edges look oversharpened (per Cmao20), and the fence and foliage obstructing is a nuisance … certainly a nice shot but not the best possible depiction of this building. You’d better have waited for the guy to be inside. --Kreuz schnabel 20:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the spire has unnatural signs of postprocessing, clouds partially overexposed. --Ivar (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice architecture but the light is not cooperative in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

File:Central black hole of M87.tif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 02:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by Event Horizon Telescope - uploaded by FallK38 - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- shizhao (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. Maybe this would fare better at VIC. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an FP version. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: We already have this as FP in JPG format. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jaguar Mark V drophead coupé - Charleroi 2019 - 08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2019 at 11:33:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by Jmh2o - uploaded by Jmh2o - nominated by Jmh2o -- H₂O^(talk) 11:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H₂O^(talk) 11:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love it, and it's an unusual, creative composition, a really good way to depict this hood ornament. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice subject but distracting background. The head of the jaguar looks like a hook -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile – the unlucky background spoils it in my eyes too. Pity, otherwise I’d really support it. Any more shots of this fine motif from a slightly different angle? --Kreuz schnabel 09:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The background is indeed not ideal, but I'd still support the picture as it is. --Domob (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the background lines do, for me, is accentuate those in the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really a shame about that "head hook". Keeping an eye on the background when you make a shot is boring, but it can save your photo. --Cart (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ptilotula penicillata - Glen Davis.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2019 at 06:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Oversharpened? It looks strange to me at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Sorry to ruin the party but it definitely looks rather odd at full size. It's as if the focus has been slightly missed and the image has been ovesharpened to compensate. It's still good and overall QI, but given the number of excellent bird photos we get on this forum (including many better ones from this same author), I don't feel the need to vote support. Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice photo, but too much processed for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others. --Hockei (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Prasüras,door het Val Trupchun naar Alp Purcher 18-09-2019. (d.j.b) 18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2019 at 16:27:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Old hut/Switzerland
Info Maybe too simple for FP. But the building blends in beautifully with the landscape. With the sturdy picnic table in front.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharp photo, but not really interesting, no wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely nice but not excellent IMHO. The sunlit wall looks overexposed, at least washed out, and I’d prefer to see what the shadow on the right comes from. Also, I’d prefer less space on the left and more on the right to support the direction the house "looks" into. --Kreuz schnabel 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah it looks all right, but nothing really extraordinary.--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice scene, but not special enough for FP for me. (Especially the flat grass in the front seems a bit boring to me.) --Domob (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough, just a good QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support--Famberhorst (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough, just a good QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: took a while to grow on me, I like the overall harmony of it. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the poorly done and obvious cloning on the right nails it. --Kreuz schnabel 22:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mandelbox Detailstruktur 20191219 Equil 01.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2019 at 11:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info A panoramic view of detail structures of the Mandelbox (other versions included in the description) created/uploaded/nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little more interesting than the other one, but I still can't see what I'm supposed to be impressed by. Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Stubwieswipfel winter.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 21:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
Info All by Grtek -- Grtek (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Grtek (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice scenery, but the composition isn't doing anything to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the light and the composition are not really appealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks a bit underexpoesed. The tree right in the middle makes a more disturbing than outstanding composition. --Milseburg (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thought that larch in the middle could be interesting and counter-schematic component. --Grtek (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mesi Bridge (Ura e Mesit).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2019 at 09:48:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition doesnt work for me --Grtek (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose I like the composition since it reminds me of a lot of Cézanne landscapes I've been looking at lately for an article I'm developing, but it's not as sharp as one would like. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Compositionally, something with less of the boring gray parking lot or whatever it is on the left might be worth considering. Very nice bridge, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's definitely a nice bridge, but I'm not sure this angle is interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schopf-Tintling (Coprinus comatus)-20191017-RM-153349.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2019 at 09:28:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Fungi#Agaricaceae
Info Tintling (Coprinus comatus) in the Bruderwald in Bamberg.Focus stack from 4 frames.All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 notes added. --Ivar (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the hints.--Ermell (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why mushrooms should not smoke ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very funny comment from Daniel! Excellent quality and good subject. Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wegerich Scheckenfalter Wittenberge-Rühstädter Elbniederung.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2019 at 12:27:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing photo - why is there no moisture on the plant. Another of this photographer photo's with no EXIF data. Nothing on Flickr either. 16:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wish more of the plant could have been in focus, but as Charles said, that's an amazing photo of the butterfly! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was not aware butterflies were bathing :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Adenium obesum.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2019 at 01:14:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Gentianales
Info: all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good, but I wish the focus were a little better in some places. Cmao20 (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnovikov (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good picture, but I don't see as much wow here as with some other flowers we had here before. --Domob (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be fair to say that I've been spoiled by all the great flower photos that have been nominated here, but Oppose per Domob. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan, the FP bar has got pretty high in this area of photography, sorry --Poco a poco (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peacock pansy (Junonia almana almana) dry season form Nepalgunj.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2019 at 17:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_(Brush-footed_Butterflies)
Info This butterfly from Nepal exhibits seasonal polyphenism. Throughout the year the peacock butterfly basks with its wings open – see a wet season FP from Jee. The bright orange colour and the large eyespots keep vertebrate predators away. The big change comes when it rests with its wings closed. In the wet season, when everything is green, it has bright eyespots on the underside too. But a butterfly born in the dry season need a different camoflage. There’s less food around and it must rest more. The forewings of the dry season form are fulcate (see nom) and the hindwing has a ‘tail’. There are no eyespots. It becomes an imitation of a dry leaf when it roosts upside down or enters aestivation. More reading All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unsharp in the middle and part of the right side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yes, you're right. Charles (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antwerp July 2015-3BW.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2019 at 16:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info A retro photo interpretation of a typical street in old Antwerp. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice! But can you also perhaps produce a slightly different crop with more room at the top? So that the building in the middle and the street lamp are not cut off? --Domob (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I'm a strong advocate for more B&W photographs at FPC, but in this case I feel that neither is B&W a good choice for this subject nor is this subject a good choice for a strong B&W photograph. B&W emphasizes form and texture, but neither of these aspects are very strong in this scene to begin with. Or maybe it's just a matter of how the conversion was done: The color version has some contrasting colors (red bricks vs. green-ish road). By adjusting the color channels accordingly during conversion, maybe that could be utilized to separate the road more from the houses. That's one of the big advantages of digital B&W photography: You don't have to choose your emulsion and color filters in advance to get the desired effect. --El Grafo (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you El Grafo, for taking the time suggesting how this photo could be improved. Maybe I could have enhanced the contrast between the various elements, e.g. between the ground and the building, by adjusting the relative contribution of each colour channel. The few experiments I did convinced me that the overall effects would be minimal unless "brute force" were used. That is precisely what I don't want to do because such approach would have ruined what I like more in this interpretation: the mood and the delicate local contrasts and structure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvesgaspar: fair enough! That's another thing I enjoy about B&W, regardless of whether we're talking about digital or old school analog darkroom printing: when it comes to forming the final image it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. And speaking of printing, I've got a feeling that this interpretation might work very well as a large (A1+) print (although the soft foreground may turn out to be a bit of a problem then). And apologies for not mentioning this last time: I really like the scene and composition – I'm just not blown away by it. Changing my vote to a "weak oppose" to better reflect how I feel about this. --El Grafo (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine composition. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good documentation, but the composition isn't doing anything for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I actually like the composition a great deal, it's the image quality I'm not sure about - it looks somewhat oversharpened to me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) 4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2019 at 17:23:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Perissodactyla_(Odd-toed_ungulates)
Info The Vulnerable one-horned rhino from Nepal. We spotted the rhino in the hazy distance while on the Narayani River, which runs past the Chitwan Community Forest buffer zone. Air pollution is a huge problem here. Our boatmen and guide helped us ashore using their "emergency bridge" and we got back in our Landrover. We parked up to watch him. He then decided we were of interest and trotted towards us. He eyeballed us for a minute, then luckily turned away. Finally, he stuck his tongue out and wandered off! Note links in the text. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check the geocodes. The camera location is probably not on the river and probably also not the same for all the scenes. --A.Savin 18:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it wasn't. Please check satellite view on Google Maps, not map view. In the dry season, the river is lower and I've tried to estimate where we were. And all images (apart from 'emergency landing') were taken from a stationary vehicle. That's the point of the story I tell. Charles (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The satellite view shows it on an island, probably caused by low water level at the timepoint of satellite shot. I doubt it's the precise location, even an estimate may be more plausible. --A.Savin 11:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little general point - not relevant here. It is often unwise for wildlife photopgraphers to reveal exact locations. Some examples: collectors can target rare butterfly species; birds nesting; frog/dragonfly-rich ponds. Charles (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in doubt if a geotag is called for, you may spare it of course; but a misleading location is always the wrong way to go. --A.Savin 11:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree Alexander . A geotag that is approximate - say within 300m, for a sensitive wildlife site like an eagle's nest is perfect. And geotags are needed on Commons for VI. Also, think about it: Say I am being guided around all day in an unmapped forest in Madagascar. The guide has never seen a map and has no idea where we are. I know, I often ask. There's no phone signal. And, even if I wanted to, I would not be able to specifiy exactly where each image was taken. All images that day will have the same geotag. Charles (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some Canon EOS have built-in GPS, for the others an external one is available AFAIK. For other manufacturers, a Bluetooth-connected smartphone can be used (this is what I use). Not always accurate data, but still. If this info was helpful, you're welcome. --A.Savin 12:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big problem with smartphone: roaming charges are prohibitive in some countries. In Nepal it is £1.80 per MB from Vodafone. Average data use for Google Maps is 2MB/hour. Charles (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you go on travel, you usually need a phone anyway. Not sure if you're really unaware of possibilities such as purchasing a local SIM card or an international one. But that's only a side note and I'm not discussing this; I just tried to explain how to get accurate GPS data even in remote areas. If it's helpful for your future trips, you're welcome; if not... well, you're welcome too. --A.Savin 19:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to potentially clear up a common misconception: If your only concern is tracking your position (as opposed to using that position to navigate), GPS itself does not require a data or phone connection (also true for other GNSS including Galileo, GLONASS, BeiDou). There are plenty GNSS (GPS) logger apps out there that just silently track your position in a GPX file. When you're back at home, you can overlay that track on GoogleEarth or similar and see where you went. The only thing that GoogleMaps needs needs a data connection are the maps and satellite images. But if you have a rough idea about where you're going, GoogleMaps also allows you to download map and satellite data in advance (e.g. over the hotel's WiFi) and use that for navigation. And if you are in an area with good OSM coverage (likely not the case in Nepal), something like Osmand with offline maps may be much more helpful than anything Google could deliver. --El Grafo (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, if you are concerned about the safety of animals, you can use Template:Location withheld or even better Template:Location rounded which will give the viewer an idea about in what area the photo is taken without revealing the exact location. Or you can use one of these to make a new animal-specific template which includes some text about safety for animals. We have people safety templates (example), so why not some for animal safety too. --Cart (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment +1. I don't mind if the location is estimated for this kind of image, but please be open about this. That means not giving more decimals than appropriate, based on how certain you are about the location. With 6 decimals, you're pointing at a coffee cup on a table. --El Grafo (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC) PS: There's also {{Location estimated}}[reply]

Yes, less than 6 decimals is sensible. I've just been using the data that comes straight off Google Maps, but I can easily knock off (two?) decimal places when I need to. Charles (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even three, depends on how confident you are in that position … --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three digits it is. Charles (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Really excellent! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good!--Ermell (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Animal in the wild. Congratulations -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare species, sharp and high-resolution photo. Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Perissodactyla_(Odd-toed_ungulates)

File:Ship wreck Carnatic 2017-04-22 Egypt-7947.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2019 at 11:45:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Shipwrecks
Info created & uploaded by W.Strickling - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know how an underwater pic gets dust spots on it, but I see at least two of what sure look like dust spots. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dust one the sensor? Seven Pandas (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. And it's insulated from the water. The dust spots are evident even in the thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you are reading as "dust spots" is simply lots of small stuff that is always floating around under water. Some get in focus and some get out of focus and they do resemble normal dust spots. You may have been a bit spolied by my marine photos, taken in clean nature reserves and also with the debris cleaned up by me. A more normal underwater "soup" usually looks like this. --Cart (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see two dust spots. Charles (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, how do you know it's a dust spot and not some small specks of debris clinging to the outside of the lens shielding? In this case, with all the debris in the water, I think it's ridiculous to dump a great photo because of perceived "dust spots". --Cart (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because a small speck on a lens shield wouldn't produce these tell-tale marks. Charles (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, this image, like a lot of underwater photos is taken with a fisheye lens (Peleng 8mm f/3.5). The aperture is unrecorded (lens has no contacts) but at most apertures the DoF on a fisheye is somewhat infinite and will record motes of dust/debris with hard edges. You are more used to telephoto lenses with shallow DoF. I can only find one other picture that seemed to have been taken on the same dive (this) and hard to tell, but I don't see dust spots on that. Whether folk might want them removed for aesthetic reasons is one matter, but it is not straightforward to assume their origin. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those two spots don't look small, but I take it, you think they could be? And Cart, it's not tiny specks I'm concerned with. There are no dust spots in the shot you linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the same way snowflakes close to the lens become big transparent blobs like in this. Imagine the debris like an underwater snowfall. --Cart (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it's plausible that those aren't dust spots. But if it were like a snowfall, wouldn't there be more than a couple of them? Also, I haven't voted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, debris in water is not as homogenous as a snowfall, there might be only one or two close enough to the camera to cause this. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dust spots. Top centre crop. Charles (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - If those are dust spots, they should be removed, but Cart's explanations seem clearly plausible to me - I have no expertise on this, she does, and her remarks ring true. As for the "chromatic aberration", I think that's simply a function of the water functioning like a prism when the light streams through it at a particular angle. And the image is certainly compelling, as others have stated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, not trying to change your support vote, but I think the purple CA is just bog standard lens-caused CA, which shows up on high-contrast ends towards the edge of the frame. I have a fisheye lens and CA can be a problem in the corners, and my Samyang is a better lens than this Peleng. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, it should be corrected. W.Strickling, would you like to comment on this or the possible dust spots? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great composition. --Cart (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until CA and dust spots are removed. --Ivar (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah, I'd like the CA to be removed (and whatever those spots are), but I'm still a support either way. It's a fascinating subject and the quality is great for an underwater shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The categorization is not very lush. The name of the ship would be interesting.--Ermell (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ship's name, Carnatic, is in the file title. Category added. --Cart (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are plenty of floating motes in the water, but there are also several visible dust spots that need to be spot-healing-brushed out. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent subject and composition, quality is not great but other factors mitigate that here. Cmao20 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sindh monument at chaukhandi pakistan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2019 at 16:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by YasirDe - uploaded by YasirDe - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting building and nice sky. --Domob (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice the cloning issues on the step initially... --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tempered Support - I'm a little bothered by the overexposure of the step, but the rest is good enough. I wish we could get the photographer to dial down the brightness of that step. Also, it was built "sometime in the 15th and 18th centuries"? I see the same language in w:Chaukhandi tombs, but I don't know what it means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor sharpness and overprocessed -- sharpening haloes at edges, extensively softened clouds, big parts of the structure is too soft. Plus too generous crop at the bottom which is blurred, despite rather tight crop at the top. --A.Savin 02:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am also bothered by the overexposed parts, but unlike Ikan, I don't think that the rest is good enough. "Good enough" is not an expression I'd use for an FP candidate, there should be much more than that. On the good side, I'll mention the composition, which I think is very good.--Peulle (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Excellent mood and composition but the technical quality makes it a no-go for me. Worst part is the bluntly done selection and/or cloning (it’s obviously cloned, multiple repetitive texture) on the stone block on the ground, but the strong sharpening haloes around all edges don’t help either. I do hope there’s a RAW file of this so it may be redone carefully. This here result has been so poorly processed that it’s far below FP standards for me. --Kreuz schnabel 10:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see what people are saying about the overprocessing and unpleasant effects on the sharpness of the building at full size, and I think it's quite legitimate to look at this kind of picture at full size, so I've crossed out my previous supporting vote. I just really like this tomb and would like to support a photo of it. As for "good enough", I'm sure every one of us has voted for pictures we saw as imperfect, because of our overall appraisal of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the cloning is not good at all. It's a dramatic shot but not IMO an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wintertafereel in de mist. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2019 at 16:05:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Netherlands
Info Winter Scene in the fog. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. A simple winter scene.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry if I’m too rude but I really can’t see what’s special here. I could take hundreds of pics like this on a frosty winter day. I just wouldn’t know what to use them for. --Kreuz schnabel 20:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice fog but unexceptional composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I do like the misty mood, but the composition isn't very special. Per Kreuzschnabel, I suspect you could have taken any number of shots that day that would have looked very similar. Cmao20 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilsons Promontory National Park (AU), Big Drift -- 2019 -- 1683.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 08:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great composition, IMO. The sand is very bright, but I'm sure that's accurate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's accurate. ;-) A short moment of very good sunlight. --XRay ^talk 10:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Interesting view but not that wowing IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.08.29.-02-Anglersee Huettenfeld-Lampertheim--Grosse Sumpfschwebfliege-Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 16:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Syrphidae (Hoverflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Interesting subject and good quality. On the other hand the leave on the right is disturbing and therefore the compo improvable Poco a poco (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Light's a little harsh IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Syrphidae (Hoverflies)

File:2018 - Nyhavn on sunset.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 20:38:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Denmark
Info created & uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Ivar (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice! Just so you know, the English expression is "at sunset". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 00:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question Does "Places/Other" work well as a category? Was there nothing more specific? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stagonopleura guttata 1 - Glen Alice.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 20:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- STUNNING !! Seven Pandas (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paramount Theater Asbury Park Convention Hall NJ1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2019 at 18:03:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by Acroterion - uploaded by Acroterion - nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, the corner is not really attractive --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not an extraordinary composition and the sharpness isn't fantastic. I use these superlatives advisedly, as the standards for Featured Picture are and should be very high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Center distortion resulting from perspective correction. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Good pic overall, but the sharpness could definitely be better. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monastyr Karmelitiv Bosykh panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2019 at 15:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Ukraine
Info A fortified Carmelite monastery built in the C17th in the historic Ukrainian city of Berdychiv. created by Balkhovitin - uploaded by Balkhovitin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful! --El Grafo (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and light. Good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rue Belgrand in Avallon.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 09:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit lacking in composition for me, especially compared to your other nom. Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. I find the composition good, but I don't find it exceptional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.09.30.-10-Neckar Mannheim--Grosse Heidelibelle-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 16:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you seen the this exisiting FP?. I think it has a much nicer background. Charles (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Precisely because of the background my nomination. I love the earth hue and its contrast to the dragonfly. --Hockei (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support IMO both are good enough to be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Quality is good but the enviroment/bokeh could be nicer Poco a poco (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The poor thing looks like it's absolutely exhausted ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It only enjoys the brief moment of sunshine. ;-) --Hockei (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taeniopygia bichenovii 2 - Glen Alice.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2020 at 11:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevards de Paris by L'Illustration[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2020 at 14:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

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

Bureaux : Rue Richelieu, 60. L'Illustration, journal universel.
Vue, à vol d'oiseau, de la place de la Concorde, prise du pont de la Concorde.
Place de la Madeleine, rue de la Ferme-des-Mathurins, rue Godot.
Rue de Sèze, rue de Caumartin.
Hôtel d'Osmond, Société des inventeurs, rue de la Chaussée-d'Antin, rue du Helder.
Café de Paris, rue Taitbout, Tortoni, Maison Dorée, rue Laffitte, Café Biche, rue Le Peletier.
Hôtel Paturle, passage de l'Opéra, Café Mulhouse, Opéra, rue de la Grange-Batelière, Jockey-Club, Cercle Montmartre.
Bateaux à Vapeur, rue du Faubourg-Montmartre.
Rue Rougemont, Maison du Pont-du-Fer, rue du Faubourg-Poissonnière, Galette, Théâtre du Gymnase.
Rue d'Hauteville, Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle, rue de Mazagran.
Porte Saint-Denis et rue du Faubourg-Saint-Denis, passage au Bois, cité d'Orléans, porte Saint-Martin et rue du Faubourg-Saint-Martin.
Rue de Bondy, Société industrielle, Théâtre de la Porte-Saint-Martin, Théâtre de l'Ambigu-Comique.
Rue de Lancry, Château-d'Eau, rue du Faubourg-du-Temple.
Restaurant Deffieux, Cirque Olympique, Folies-Dramatiques, Gaîté, Funambules.
Délassements-Comiques, Lazary, Maison construite sur l'emplacement de celle de Fieschi, rue d'Angoulême.
Rue Saint-Sébastien, rue du Chemin-Vert.
Rue Amelot, petite rue Saint-Pierre, rue d'Aval, Canal de l'Ourcq.

Café Gibé, rue Jean-Beau-Sire, Hôtel de Ninon de Lenclos, Théâtre Beaumarchais, rue du Pas-de-la-Mule.
Rue Neuve-Saint-Gilles, rue des Tournelles, rue du Harlay, rue Saint-Claude.
Rue du Pont-aux-Choux, rue Neuve-Ménilmontant, rue des Filles-du-Calvaire, rue de Saintonge.
Cardan-Bleu, rue Charlot, Café Turc, passage Vendôme, rue du Temple.
Rue Saint-Martin.
Rue Saint-Denis, rue de Cléry, rue de la Lune.
Rue Notre-Dame-de-Bonne-Nouvelle, rue Sainte-Barbe, rue Saint-Étienne, rue Notre-Dame-de-Recouvrance, rue Poissonnière.
Rue du Sentier, Fabrique de tapis de M. Sallandrouze.
Bazar de l'Industrie, rue Montmartre, Théâtre des Variétés, passage des Panoramas, rue de Vienne.
Maison Frascati, rue Richelieu, Café Cardinal, rue Favart.
Rue Favart, Opéra-Comique, rue Marivaux, Café Anglais, rue de Gramont, Bazar, Cercle des Arts, rue de Choiseul.
Rue de Choiseul, Bains Chinois, rue de La Michodière, Pavillon de Hanovre, rue Louis-le-Grand.
Rue de la Paix.
Rue Neuve-Saint-Augustin, Hôtel du ministre des affaires étrangères, rue Neuve-des-Capucines, rue Neuve-du-Luxembourg.
Cité Vindé, rue Duphot.
Vue à vol d'oiseau du canal Saint- Martin, de la place et du quartier de la Bastille, prise de la rive droite de la Seine.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created by L'Illustration - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see why we should have both the png and jpg versions in the nom. The normal practise is to nominate one format. Example: this and this. --Cart (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The JPG version is easy to use, but the PNG version is bigger. I think both are useful. (It is impossible to save file as JPG with maximum resolution) --Paris 16 (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we usually feature one version and link to the other(s), since FPs of two versions of the exact same image is against the FPC rules. See #4 in COM:FPC#Featuring and delisting rules: "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured." You need to select which one you want to nominate, png or jpg. Come to think of it, I wonder if that might also apply to all the small images here as well. They are essentially crops of the big image, and crops of FPs are not FP since this assessment is not 'inherited' by the partial image. --Cart (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Cart! I've removed the JPG version. The other images are not simply the crops of the big image. They have been restored, roted...--Paris 16 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I cannot accept so many similar pictures as FP at once. Perhaps it's a better idea to select few best. Also, not sure why a huge lower area of each picture is empty. --A.Savin 17:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no reason for me to FP nomination. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Fisher. -- Karelj (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

File:2019-11-16, Glockenspiel, Neues Müncher Rathaus, IMG 7463 edit Christoph Braun.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2019 at 13:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Christoph Braun (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent resolution and sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality of a frequently shot subject, a golden hour lighting could have made it more interesting. Poco a poco (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand how this might improve the mood of this particular scenery. My personal approach was a different one. The day I took the image was rather cloudy to begin with and this was quite beneficial for my desired outcome. A minimum of shadows helps with improving the visibility of the detailed figurines and ordain stone masonry. I noticed you took a picture of the same motif some time ago :) Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fort St. Angelo, lower level 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2019 at 07:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I can see what you were getting at, but it just doesn't come together in this shot. That bit of floor decoration on the bottom is a little distracting, the light is flat and dull and maybe more of it should be sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I actually like the composition, it's the colours that don't quite work for me. It all looks a little bit insipid and washed-out. Perhaps a motif that is worth revisiting under better light, if you get the chance. Cmao20 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't know what this would look like in different light and weather conditions, but I like the composition and the changes in color and shade. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special... -- Karelj (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Point Reyes Lighthouse in December 2019.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2019 at 16:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#United_States_of_America
Info Point Reyes Lighthouse in the Gulf of the Farallones on Point Reyes in Point Reyes National Seashore. After being exposed to salt air and intense winds, the lighthouse had been in bad need of a repair. It reopened last month after a 15-month extensive restoration project. As this $5.7-million renovation is the only time the property has undergone a makeover in its entire history, I thought it would be well worth documenting the change. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg.
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very California. Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Standing white tiger.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2019 at 19:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
Info The only minor flaw with this shot to me is that the crop on the left is a bit tight, which may be why Basile didn't nominate it. Other than that it seems pretty excellent - very sharp, good quality, and lucky to capture the tiger in a dramatic pose. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lucky? In a zoo? Charles (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, still lucky to get such a good expression, although certainly massively easier than getting it in the wild! I don't mind zoo shots but you're quite entitled to oppose for that reason. Cmao20 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Cmao20 -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adorable image 😺 --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty big pussycat. But seriously, per others. Was he roaring at you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think my neighbor was more appetizing -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm normally not a big fan of zoo shots, but in this case it works pretty well for me, almost in a passport portrait kind of way … --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Torn on this, but landing on oppose. It's a technically good shot, of course, but to feature a white tiger I'd want it to be really spectacular rather than just standing there. Grown white tigers are nonexistent in the wild, but they make for money-making spectacles in captivity so they're inbred just for the purpose of display in zoos/entertainment. Breeding them is banned by e.g. the American Zoological Association because it has "has been clearly linked with various abnormal, debilitating, and, at times, lethal, external and internal conditions and characteristics". So yeah, sometimes we should feature things that are morally objectionable, but I wouldn't apply the same standards to them that I would another kind of animal (in the wild or in a zoo). Further reading. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same than dog breeding. But according to Wikipedia, the White tiger is reported from time to time in the wild. Some animal lovers say life is harder for a White tiger in the wild than in captivity -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The enwiki article is presently not so great. There hasnt been a real wild white tiger seen in the wild in some decades iirc. But yeah life is harder for them in the wild, to the point that they, well, don't exist in the wild. So yes like an extreme version of dog breeding (most white tigers around now are believed to be from a single lineage, in fact, with immediate relatives bred together...). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My picture is for free, not for sell. Not made for dollars. I bought my camera with my own money, and now release this image on Wikimedia Commons without retribution. Anyone can use the free licence for any purpose. You can even send a Christmas card with my tiger if you want . Or you can illustrate an article about animal coat, breeding, roar (vocalization), etc. Your creations won't bring me money.
- I think the Wikipedia article is better than the ABC News article you link, because it is free (based on volunteering), with a neutral point of view, and existing in more than 31 languages (English, French, Hungarian, Hindi, etc.) On the contrary, there are many adds to Facebook on the page you publish here, and it is certainly written and illustrated in a sensational way, so that everybody share it on the social networks, to make millions of dollars to ABC News and billions of dollars to Facebook. By the way, this is totally schizophrenic, because when you click on one of these Facebook links, you discover the same ABC News site previously published this article displaying a picture of two adorable young white tigers in front, and encouraging to "boost the gene pool in its breeding population" For the article White tiger of Wikipedia, it can be improved, and illustrated accurately with various sources and all the available images. But as long as the white tigers exist in the world (and in the wild at the beginning), I think we should feel free to illustrate the animal accurately. This specimen here shown on the image is a descendant of Mohan.
- The Zoo of Singapore, where the tiger comes from, honestly mentions the origin of its specimens: "When Mohan went on to mate with a female from this litter, they produced four white cubs. This started the breeding of white tigers under human care." Now the question about "human care" and ethics in such cases, like dog breeding, is another debate, in my opinion. We are photographers, not the WWF committee.
- Your article says it is "a barbaric practice for beauty". We could consider the same for this girl, and all the Kayan females in Myanmar. Although this is a Featured Picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand the context for all of these. My oppose isn't about you or your ability (as I said, the technical quality is good, and I suspect you know by now that I have a lot of respect for your work). I'm also not suggesting the ABC article is better (or worse) than Wikipedia. It was just the first relevant source I spotted. The girl with neck rings suggests a conversation about ethics/morality in the context of FPC more broadly, and I don't really want to get into that here. I just found myself uncomfortable featuring a white tiger without there being something truly exceptional about the image. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it should be considered as a Bengal tiger before being a White one. Thus I've added a direct link to the species in the description. Hopefully this beautiful specimen will mate / be crossed with a yellow one in the future and in the wild, to produce 200% healthy cubs 😺😺😺.

Your link gave me the impression that this image should not be promoted because the existence of the animal is objectionable on an ethics aspect (but like the neck rings of the Karen girl in Myanmar, or like the ABC News articles, in my view). Now I understand you find the image rather ordinary, and I respect your opinion. Thanks for your contribution -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Rhododendrites --Andrei ([[User talk:Andrew J.Kurbiko|this Karen girltalk]]) 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites, I didn't know. Charles (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)

Phoenicopterus roseus - Étang de l'Oeil de Ca, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2019 at 15:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Obviously something is lacking ...
The heads... Here they are!

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info A group of Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus) was feeding at the lakeshore of the Étang de l'Oeil de Ca, Sigean, France. Suddenly all the animals raised their heads simultaneously, looked around and then continued to feed again. This was repeated about every 30 seconds over a longer period of time. Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture. Cmao20 (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is an artful composite and IMO both images individually are QI. However, the heads-and-tails effect being considered here for FP requires the combined presence of both individual images and the caption to really work the wow. Will reserve time to think further about this... --GRDN711 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think, this is the purpose of a set (and why in FP-nominations it is possible to nominate sets and not only singe pictures): Pictures, which complete each other and/or tell a story. Pictures of a set always belong together, otherwise one could nominate each picture per se without loosing information or the story. Finally they also become promoted (if they have enough votes) as a set and not as individual pictures --Llez (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow factor is subjective --Wilfredor (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny idea and great work! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per good explanation of FP set theory by Liez. Food for thought - if the "heads" image was cropped to the waters edge at the top, this image might be stronger. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Good idea! --Llez (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Deloitte Building, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2019 at 20:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
Info All by me. It's Deloitte Building, Christchurch, New Zealand. One of my city captures. I like the light and the organic shapes of the building. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 14:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Umlaufberg Neckarburg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2019 at 20:37:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created & uploaded by Martin Ruof - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and composition. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly too bright IMO but still very good.--Ermell (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 14:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haßfurt Ritterkapelle Altar 8171826 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2019 at 22:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Altar in the knight's chapel in Haßfurt am Main. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice. A lot of the wall looks greenish. Is that from light streaming through the stained glass, is it CA, or is the stone in fact greenish? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The glass in the side windows is not white. The altar and the walls are of the same stone. The light from the windows affects the color here, I suppose.--Ermell (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and lovely motif. Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Windmill of the Redounel in La Couvertoirade (10).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 09:51:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Famberhorst (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little soft in the landscape, but that actually enhances the mood. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice landscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A lady visiting Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2019 at 15:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran

Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ The title of photo is misleading, Muslim praying is not like this, to me it seems like a tourist looking up at the window. In a previous nomination, the photo had a wrong title, and I brought it up to uploader's attention and he agreed, but failed to rename the file and correct the info. --Gnosis (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Gnosis: I think you're right. what's the nearest name to this picture? what do you think? a tourist looks at the light is good? a tourist can be christian or Buddhist and can pray as their own way. some religion believes you can pray god in every temple or mosque or church.--Amirpashaei (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirpashaei: What you assume about praying is not a fact, how do you know she is not an atheist? What I can see in this picture is a woman (not even sure if she is a tourist) is looking at light coming through the window at Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque. --Gnosis (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until we clear up this issue with the title. Support now Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: , @Gnosis: , can we put him away and will name the picture just Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque?

May be call it "File:A visitor in Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque.jpg"? --El Grafo (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. good offer. A visitor or a tourist. I agree.--Amirpashaei (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either proposed names works for me. --Gnosis (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be inclined to support when it's properly renamed, but I'd feel happier if the brightest highlights, which look quite blown to me, are dialed back a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please please, a thousand times, please do not "dial back" the "brightest highlights". Direct or reflected specular light like this should be as bright as we can render in JPG, and not reduced by a slider to paper white. However, the white parts in the centre and above the woman's head do not look pleasing. Is there damage to the tiles, or is that just a bright light reflection? If the latter, and you are using HDR, then perhaps this could be handled better with nicer transition to bright -- here it just looks like someone splatted white paint onto the photo. But perhaps it can't be fixed because the camera has simply caught a bad reflection angle, and maybe a slightly different position would have avoided this harsh reflection? -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: , @Ikan Kekek: , I took 5 shut with 5 different levels of exposure. but because of reflecting light directly to the lens, unfortunately there is not any details can recover them.--Amirpashaei (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only thing that gives me pause about whether to support or not. I definitely wouldn't consider opposing. This mosque is spectacular and otherwise well-captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - So to pursue this a bit: Per Colin's question: Is there damage to the tiles or is that just a bright light reflection? Is that what you answered above? To clarify: that's what's preventing me from supporting this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No . there's not damage. just reflection. I answered in the reflection area I can't recover the details. --Amirpashaei (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree about the name. I suggest something like "File:A lady visiting Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque.jpg" or "File:A visitor in Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque.jpg" (suggested by El Grafo). @Amirpashaei: If you agree to "File:A lady visiting Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque.jpg" (or "File:A visitor in Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque.jpg", I personally prefer the first one because it also has the word "lady" and therefore is more specific), I can rename the file upon your request once the nomination is over. Pinging @Gnosis, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek. Thank you. Ahmad^talk 13:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "A lady visiting Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque.jpg" . very nice. thanks for your effort @Ahmad252: .--Amirpashaei (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rename it and fix things for you with the nom page, code and everything. --Cart (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind Mrs carter.--Amirpashaei (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've also cleaned up a lot of red-linked/broken suggestions above so no one accidentally clicks on them and create them. --Cart (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot Mrs carter. --Amirpashaei (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for the rename. --Gnosis (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van S-charl naar Alp Sesvenna. 10-09-2019. (d.j.b) 27.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2019 at 15:59:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info Mountain tour from S-charl a place in the Swiss canton Graubünden to Alp Sesvenna. Impressive erosion field above mountain stream Aval S-charl, tributary of the Clemgia (Bottom left side).
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting landscape, to be sure, but harsh light drains a lot of that interest away. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel, looks kind of bleached. I'm also missing a clear subject or compositional idea. It has some strong diagonals that could lead the eye towards something, but the point where they meet is hidden behind the pile of dirt in the center of the frame … --El Grafo (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, dark parts are extremely noisy, and the overexposed bright clouds too dominant to tolerate. --Kreuz schnabel 09:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I do like the landscape, but the dark parts are indeed surprisingly noisy. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Cmao20: Noise reduced. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per El Grafo's comments on the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Ivar (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gavin Whyte, CZE-NIR 2019-10-14 (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2019 at 19:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info All by T.Bednarz - nominated by T.Bednarz -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Poor framing and no action. Charles (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main person is sharp, but no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where is the ball? --Gnosis (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't stand out from other pictures of athletes on a field here. It would certainly work in an article about this player, but we need more than that for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Nothing really wrong here but not outstanding either. --Kreuz schnabel 11:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support i think this photo has a good mood and captures the moment --Andrei (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Charles and Daniel. It's a good sharp photo that would be fine illustrating a newspaper article, but there's nothing dramatic going on, so it's not interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Ivar (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pupa of Common Mime Butterfly DSC 0023.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 17:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Atudu - uploaded by Atudu - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very misleading. This has been rotated through 90 degrees. Charles (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending resolution of whether the rotation matters. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can't see the reason, why would author not rotate it back. --Ivar (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tehran in a clean day.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2019 at 14:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure about this one. There are a number of areas that look quite blurry/out of focus; perhaps you have used a flawed frame when stitching? See image notes. Cmao20 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some parts of picture blurry because I thought those part can break the law of copy right of architecture or Violate of Privacy of houses . this work was necessary?--Amirpashaei (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that lack of FoP is a consideration when you've photographed hundreds of buildings in a single shot; that's more of a collage. As for privacy, I understand the consideration, but I don't see any real issues there. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: , @Cmao20: , I replaced the original file without blurry. thanks for your attentions. --Amirpashaei (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. Cmao20 (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I still see some blur up front (which may be more a result of those houses being closest to the camera), and some CA. But ... not so much as to seriously detract from the rest of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture faces North of Tehran, which is the upper-class part of this mega city. --Gnosis (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. --Amirpashaei (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some strange circles visible in the sky (all across). perhaps a dust spot that appears in every frame? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I fixed circle spots. thanks. --Amirpashaei (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Certainly a very valuable image, but I don't really love the light and the foreground is very dark. It's definitely a nice view toward the mountains, and I don't want to seem to be undervaluing the achievement, but I feel like we've featured better urban panoramas in better light that are sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see details in dark areas and that's not very dark. Just for cloudy air some areas are dark and some area are bright. That's gave the picture deepness and good form. If you think this is unnatural I can change it and bright the dark areas.--Amirpashaei (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it's unnatural; I just think the light wasn't so good for the picture, and that you might want to try again in different light. And there are areas where I can't see details. My screen is bright, rather than dark, for the record. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

except some trees, where you cant see details?--Amirpashaei (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In very dark shadows that just look black. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zoom H4n Digital Recorder-front oblique PNr°0427.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 10:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created, uploaded and nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very useful for sure but resolution is quite low and there are too many overexposed glaring areas, DoF barely sufficient. On a still studio shot, I’d expect flawless excellence to make some wow. --Kreuz schnabel 10:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz; crops on sides also feel a bit tight. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kakadu (AU), Kakadu National Park, Jim Jim Creek -- 2019 -- 4244.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 08:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this composition, too. 9 in the morning in late spring, very bright light, again OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question any chance to recover overexposed clouds? --Ivar (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to improve the sky and IMO it's a little bit better. I don't think that the clouds are overexposed. They are very bright, yes, but Red, Green and Blue are about 97 up to 98 %. --XRay ^talk 16:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful shot, whether or not you choose to do anything with the clouds. Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose The valley and creek are very well done. But the clouds have some real problems, and then it looks like one of the ridgelines was overprocessed to the point that there is an unusually dark edge, making it seem burnt off on the lower right of the "V". Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed clouds. --Ivar (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice capture but indeed some of those clouds look ugly, maybe not the best timing for this shot Poco a poco (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 12 (Professions) - Cortume.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 00:01:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#People_at_work
Info Tannery workers in Morocco. created by Fbrandao.1963 - uploaded by Fbrandao.1963 - nominated by Fbrandao.1963 -- Fbrandao.1963 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fbrandao.1963 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I seem to remember a similar picture that's an FP, but I can't find it. Welcome, Fbrandao.1963! You need to use a more precise category for this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I think what you remember might be this picture being a winner of this 2017 Photo challenge. --El Grafo (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed category to People at work – seems to be most appropriate to me? --El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I suppose you're right, El Grafo. I find the photo very interesting to look at and also significant as a documentation of a very hard and dangerous occupation, so I support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no attractive composition, even though it is a valuable image. Charles (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - When you say "attractive", do you think an ugly scene that's a good composition can be an FP? I don't think this scene is beautiful, but I think it's interesting and well composed, and I'm wondering whether you oppose based on a mere lack of beauty or a disagreement with the composition. Aesthetics are very personal, so whichever reason you have is legitimate, but I happen not to think beauty is essential in an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's an unattractive (or ugly) scene; It's an unattractive composition. I don't like the POV; there is no symmetry to the sight lines; perspective distortion; there are no faces visible; all the vats are truncated (we see neither the whole area, nor a featured area; croped figure top right; the light reflected on a water in the vats is offputting. Charles (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I understand. You have properly high standards for an FP composition. I found it good to move my eyes around, but I definitely get your points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. This image of tanning in well pots as it has been done for centuries draws me in. It makes me think and says wow to me. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stereoscope (Loreo).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 22:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info The stereogram of a stereoscope with three stereo cards creates seen through a stereoscope or VR goggles a superb sensation of submersion in reality. -- created by C.Suthorn - uploaded by C.Suthorn - nominated by C.Suthorn -- C.Suthorn (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C.Suthorn (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it’s a witty idea, the resulting picture is below excellence IMHO. Contrast too harsh, visible artifacts. Most of the subject is unsharp, making high resolution pointless. Try focus stacking. --Kreuzschnabel 07:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the image is meant to be viewed with a stereoscope, or today actually VR goggles. This are available with resolutions of max. 4K. This image viewed in this way gives a better feeling of "real world" than many other 3D images I have seen. While I have no prove for it, I assume, that a contributing factor is, that the downscaling from its original resolution is done by the device used with the goggles (and is different with the device being UHD, QHD, FHD, HDR and 16:9, 18:9, 20:9 or any other individual properties). For me this image has the special "wow" factor, that is asked for in FP, and that to me many but far from all FPs have. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose using flat objects such as paper is perhaps the worst type of object to use to demonstrate depth in such an image. Unexplained crop, angle, choice of photos and low exposure. Whilst a meta concept, it's not FP worthy compared to other stereo images uploaded.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question You speak about "concept" and it sounds as if you are judging a textual description of the image, no word about what your sensation was, when you saw the 3D image through a stereo device. As I wrote above, this image has to me an appeal, that only a few other 3D images (from commons or oher sources) have. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am simply comparing it to other FP stereo images. I don't doubt this image is impressive on the right VR device, but high resolution is a single technical achievement only.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the clever idea and bringing something unusual to FPC. I think there is an inevitable issue, though, based on your responses above: I don't think it's safe to assume more than one or two reviewers (if that) will be looking at this through a stereoscopic device. Even for someone like me who has a Google Cardboard somewhere, maybe I'm lazy but digging it out, remembering how to set it up, finding a gallery app, downloading an image, and putting it on just doesn't seem like a practical step in the FPC review process. Perhaps if someone were a regular user of such devices, it would be natural, but for most people this will be evaluated as this photo pair, according to typical standards for FPC. And per those standards, one of the main elements is the stereogram in the device, which along with the back of the device is quite soft. I think for someone like me an interesting 3d image starts with some wow factor and educational value built in, but the technical bits need to be there, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If only someone could create a stereoscopic viewing program for this site that's easily clickable like the 3D panorama viewing program, we'd be able to give a fair review of stereoscopic images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gelada (Theropithecus gelada gelada) male.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2020 at 17:24:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info A post-prandial nap (photo taken on Boxing Day). The gelada "baboon" is also known as the bleeding-heart monkey. They only live in the highlands of Ethiopia. Adult males have an impressive cape of hair on their backs. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but for me not sharp enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opengebarsten vrucht van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) (d.j.b.) 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2020 at 15:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae.
Info Cracked fruit (nap) of beech (Fagus sylvatica) with 2 more beech nuts.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness and detail. Cmao20 (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to the object --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very careful processing, congrat. But a bit too much empty space IMO, maybe a little crop would help. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Christian Ferrer: Alternative photo added.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, but I was thinking of something much more tight, see note above. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :@Christian Ferrer: . for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment Tighter trimmed.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strike my support as there is already a quite similar FP. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Hockei (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately per cart. --Hockei (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very good illustrative photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Famberhorst, you should have told us in the first place that you moved this subject to another location, and you should have mentioned and linked the other FP. I think I have to oppose on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 11:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ "Feed me, Seymour!" — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per Cart below. I don't have a particularly strong opinion about which is better, but striking support by default since they are indeed too similar to feature both. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm so sorry, but I have a problem with this photo since it seems to be exactly the same nut, light and camera position, taken half an hour later as this FP: File:Opengebarsten vrucht van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, but with a different background. How come the background is green in one and brown in the other? Are these two photos different enough to both be FPs? 'Pinging' voters Christian Ferrer, Llez, Hockei, Seven Pandas, Johann Jaritz, Ikan Kekek, XRay, Rhododendrites, Michielverbeek, Cmao20. I was fixing the FP category/gallery for this photo when I noticed this. --Cart (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think they are different enough. And if there is a rule that "too similar" isn't allowed, it needs to be changed. If a photo is FP quality, it should be an FP. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the difference is from the background, which is now open for discussion. I'll be interested to read the explanation for how the backgrounds are so different. And on your other point: So, if someone takes 10 different photos of the same motif that are very slightly different, you really think all 10 should be FPs? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This photo was taken at a different location. That is why there is also a half-hour difference in the time of admission. You have to watch the entire scene again.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you moved the nut to another location to get another background? Because comparing the photos, it is the same nut in both photos; same 'hairs', same little damage to one nut and even the same little spider web in the nut. --Cart (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, one photo was taken on the forest avenue with autumn leaves. The other photo is made with grass in the background. I sometimes spend one afternoon on one subject.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Cart and this discussion. I knew I'd seen this nut before. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's definitely the same specimen with different background, per Christian. --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both. I don't think it is acceptable to nominate the same object from the same angle and proportions but just moved to get a different background and lighting. Seven Pandas, I think you are confusing FP with QI and there is no bar where "FP quality => FP". The key feature of FP is that it is among our finest, and we use our judgement when presented with similar images. We all take many photos of a subject, but should select one for nomination. Between the two, this one is low resolution (6MP vs 14MP) and harshly lit. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.09.30.-11-Neckar Mannheim--Rabenkraehe.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2020 at 22:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't understand this nomination. You take such great photos, but this one is not sharp enough for such a common bird. It's also not really advantageous for its face to be in lower light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It isn't really interesting with the bird seen from behind. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a pity that you see it that way. Firstly, even if the bird species is common, it is not easy to photograph them because they are very shy and careful. Second, you don't see the story behind the photo. It was walking in front of me in the same direction as me while it was watching me with its sly eyes why I was pointing the "tube" at it and whether the escape distance has fallen below. I love this picture and the scene that is in it. --Hockei (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is always frustrating when you see or experience something exceptional, but it just doesn't come out that way in a photo. Your brain is re-living that special moment when you see the photo, unfortunately it is hidden for the rest of us. Then again, you can happen to snap a meh-moment and it turns out to be a great photo by accident. Photography is the art where we often surprise ourselves, for better or worse. --Cart (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the viewer is actually looking at it or just glancing at it. It is not that difficult to recognize the story. Either you want it or you don't. I withdraw my nomination. --Hockei (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Only on FPC do you get reprimanded for trying to say something nice or soothing. Thanks for reminding me. --Cart (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no reprimand. You misinterpreted something. I only discussed about the way of looking at the photo. --Hockei (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:TAAF - Archipel de Crozet - manchot royal sur l'ile de la Possession dans la baie du Marin 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2019 at 12:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Sphenisciformes_(Penguins)
Info French Southern and Antarctic Lands - Crozet Islands - king penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus), Île de la Possession in Marin Bay. I think this picture has a good techinical quality but also a very great and cold atmosphere, and its just epic. Created by Sylvain JORIS - uploaded by Sylvain JORIS - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Quality is not quite perfect, but it's >40mpx so no problem. Atmosphere is indeed excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a big file doesn't compensate for quality. Charles (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? I'd argue it does to some extent. This is a 40mpx image that isn't quite perfect at full-res, but I could easily downsize it to a 20mpx image that has excellent sharpness and almost no noise. The big 40mpx file doesn't look as good as the 20mpx downsample at full-res, but that isn't a fair comparison. Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not seeing something wrong with the picture quality. Charles, if you do, please explain a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20's wording misled me, his explanation is fine. The wording didn't say Quality at full res. is not quite perfect - I don't have a problem with the image, though I don't think it's FP. Charles (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better in landscape with more of the birds in the background. Since the bird is facing away from the viewer, the background becomes important. Charles (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see your point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My first and second thoughts were, "so what?". Now my third is, wouldn’t this be much more interesting in landscape orientation, showing more of the group in the background? Why has it been taken upright? I’d prefer the foreground bird to stand alone against a bright background, too. --Kreuz schnabel 20:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- unsharp Seven Pandas (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unexecptional; the penguin is seen from the rear and the group in the back is cropped awkwardly. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caspar Merian, Paris wie solche Ao. 1620 im wessen gestanden, 1655 - David Rumsey.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2020 at 13:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Europe
Info created by Caspar Merian - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating! Cmao20 (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very detailed, excellent condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding! There's a detailed index freely available, btw --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Europe

File:Hoya carnosa2.jpeg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2020 at 14:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Gentianales
Info: all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see at w:Hoya carnosa that this inflorescence is quite small, but I'm still not satisfied with the sharpness or the light (seems darker than optimal). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, nothing special. -- Karelj (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. The leaves are also a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dendrelaphis formosus, Elegant bronzeback.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2020 at 08:49:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know about this one. Really nice sight at full screen, but even at that size, large parts of the snake are very unsharp, and even the head isn't all that sharp at 300% of full screen on my 13-inch laptop. It does feel like it has personality, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to many unsharp areas. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fischer. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Overwaard Mill No.4, sunrise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2020 at 11:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#The_Netherlands
Info created & uploaded by Dmytro Balkhovitin - nominated by Ivar (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, this was actually on my list of photos to nominate. Plenty of this author's work is of FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sydney (AU), Darling Harbour -- 2019 -- 3199-201.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2020 at 11:37:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 11:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 11:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low wow for me, sharpness could be better, postprocessing artefacts on the water reflections. Imho it's not the finest on Commons, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a lovely view but there's some strong aliasing on the water which I find a fairly significant technical fault. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]