Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2021

File:Vaquito.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2021 at 02:06:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much noise, poor focus.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ¡Me gusta mucho esta foto! However Bevin has a point, the quality isn't the best. Could you at least remove the CAs? --Basotxerri (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Basotxerri Done my best. This was a very fleeting moment, so I know that the technical issue is not perfect, but I think the moment is. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Thanks for the edits. Fun photo and the quality is good enough for me now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny! ...therefore I Support for the fun, and if it is promoted, then it will be ... fun. Good holiday. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Funny image, but would work better in square or horizontal orientation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too poor description IMO, what kind of cow, what kind of dog, location... and so on --Llez (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. Also Com:Overcat, though how do you know this is a working dog? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've crossed out my vote, pending resolution of these issues, whereupon I'd be happy to reinstate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the framing, this one should be landscape rather than portrait. —kallerna (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mildly amusing, but let's be honest: It's not much more than a snapshot in terms of over-all quality, sharpness, light conditions and framing. There's also something seriously wrong with the inner part of the animals' shadows – what happened to the colors there? --El Grafo (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think it's a nice idea and a well composed photo but a bit too noisy for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ergalatax crassulnata 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2021 at 07:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Muricidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this gallery of shells what a huuuge collection (always growing)! -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 11:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iris mariae 1.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2021 at 08:13:47

Info Boring composition, tilted horizon, the quality of the subject is not that great, nothing special (Original nomination)
Delist Flowers growing in sand are not that hard to find if you know where to look. -- StellarHalo (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was not boring six years ago when got promoted by seven people, and I dont think that much has changed ever since. Technically, also still good --Andrei (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --:hockei (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly too good for removal, even as of ~~2020~~ 2021. --A.Savin 16:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I'd probably vote for this if it were nominated today. Good composition, beautiful, sharp flowers, and it's not the horizon but the land that looks tilted, while the flowers and other plants look straight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Honestly surprised at how much people want to keep this. Oh well. StellarHalo (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alat Musik Sasando.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2021 at 14:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Musicians and singers performing
Info created by Fakhri Anindita - uploaded by Fakhri Anindita - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a portrait of the musician, rather than a picture of the instrument, which is blurry. I'd rather it were both, so I'm disappointed in the angle of view. I also think it's a pity that the top of his interesting hat is cut off. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. An interesting photo but many things are wrong. Person is sharp, but instrument not. A higher f-value would have been much better and a different angle. Also the top crop is not well done. --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the other critiques, there's just so much going on in this image, too much jockeying among the various elements to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is too bad. --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above, especially Michielverbeek. A good photo but a bit clumsy in the execution. Cmao20 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tenthredopsis sp - Keila.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2021 at 20:10:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Tenthredinidae_(Sawflies)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016-07-03-ColognePride 2016-5226.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2021 at 22:19:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Superbass - uploaded by Superbass - nominated by Superbass -- Superbass (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as creator -- Superbass (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but nothing to make it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly seems to be a QI, but there simply isn't any wow factor to justify featured status. --Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The faces of the accompanying riders are hidden. Also per o ther opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pappel-Schüppling (Hemipholiota populnea)-20201204-RM-154715.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2021 at 21:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Strophariaceae
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost posed-looking. Nice. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, a great one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 09:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question why is the factual accuracy of this taxonomy disputed? --Ivar (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info The species name was corrected and the template now removed.--Ermell (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply magnificent, the snow on top seems to exemplify the strength and stoutness of the fungus. --Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FCAB G22CU 1443, GR12UD 1407, GL22C 1458 Alcalde Poblete - Pascua.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2021 at 06:45:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this vast panorama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 09:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As usual, thanks for nominating this photo! I didn't like the post-processing of the original version though. Also it was very noisy. Hence I replaced the photo with a new RAW export which I think is much better - I hope nobody minds. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done again. Cmao20 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old man reading news paper early in the morning at Basantapur-IMG 6800.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2021 at 16:55:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a feeling of deja vu. Wasn't this or a very similar photo nominated before? If not, was it judged at Consensual Review at QIC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was at QI over a year ago, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 11:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 15:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is a nice portrait to be sure, but is it truly one of the best on the site? The man's head isn't very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, overall, it looks good to me. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 05:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sandeep Raut (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothin special. --Gnosis (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be a bit sharper in places, but there is something about the composition and the light that works. Cmao20 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fiordo de Geiranger, Noruega, 2019-09-07, DD 109-116 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2021 at 19:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Norway#Western_Norway_(Vestlandet)
Info Quiet view of the Geirangerfjord with a cruise ship‎, Sunnmøre Region, Norway. The image of the 15 kilometres (9.3 mi)-long branch off the Sunnylvsfjorden was taken from its end near the small village of Geiranger. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow-photo and very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the water-surface-level angle, with the reflection right in front of the viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 11:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 15:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the light is rather dull, the mountains are in shadow. Geiranger in such a scenic place that more can be expected. —kallerna (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek. Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Norway#Western_Norway_(Vestlandet)

File:State Fair (1933 film poster) - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2021 at 22:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Film
Info created by Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was that blue texture (noted) part of original ? --Mile (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to be sure without multiple copies. Given the post has clearly intentional blue tones above the "Fair", I'd say it's a possibility. It's at least in the poster that was scanned, but fingers and damage can result in changes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mile (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Film

File:Sunset Hôtel Le Concorde.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2021 at 04:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess the idea is that this is a silhouette, but none of the parts of the photo are very interesting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cropping down to the lower-right quarter might work, but then the remaining image would be too small. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water reflection of a dirt road in green paddy fields, karst mountains and clouds at sunset in Vang Vieng Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2021 at 02:52:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 17:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Just clouds and a rice field. Seven Pandas (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 15:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:צנחנים בכותל המערבי.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2021 at 10:10:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1960-1970
Info created by David Rubinger - uploaded by דוד שי - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very iconic, nice quality. Tomer T (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tomer T. Impressive sharpness, historic picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic photo in Israeli history. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --StellarHalo (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Cmao20 (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support historical moment Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1960-1970

File:Phewa Lake - panoramio (4).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2021 at 12:18:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Alexey Komarov - uploaded by Panoramio upload bot - nominated by Alexkom000 -- Alexkom000 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexkom000 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2021 (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.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cloister of Priory Saint-Michel of Grandmont (14).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2021 at 20:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this photo, but I think it would be a clearer FP if it included the top of the vault of the nearly-complete one that's cut off at the top. But on the plus side, I like the light, the shapes and lines, and the way you captured the textures of the stones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special IMO. —kallerna (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cape May Lighthouse September 2020 002.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2021 at 03:53:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a case in which a cloudless sky works very well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 11:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 15:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and serene. --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for going all the way down to this remote part of New Jersey (nearly the state's southern tip) to get this unique and beautiful image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is in the shadow. —kallerna (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I do sort of see Kallerna's point. To me you'd want to either go all-out and have the subject in silhouette, or photograph the subject fully lit by the sun. This is sort of halfway between the two, and it doesn't entirely look like it knows which way it wants to jump. But it is still a very scenic photo with strong image quality so I will be happy to see it promoted. Cmao20 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guineabissau oli 2018137 lrg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2021 at 07:06:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info Estuaries of Geba River on the coast of Guinea-Bissau. created by Landsat 8 - uploaded by Matthiasb - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vast majority of satellite pictures are not FP-worthy, many of them either not wowy enough or having large parts that are too unsharp. This, fortunately, is not one of those. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination; nicely shows the fractal design pattern nature often applies ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shapes and colours make this beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasing to look at apart from its informational value. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. Bonus: would be the 1st FP of Guinea-Bissau. --A.Savin 14:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, glad to have the first FP of the country (I hope you will create a new category) --Andrei (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 05:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CN 185 Kvam - Sjoa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2021 at 19:47:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info Time to join the Kabelleger fan-club. A stunning Norwegian photo that seems the equal of this author's many other FPs. created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo has everything: train, fall foliage, and clouds. Quality is not the best, but very reasonable for a drone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition --StellarHalo (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. --Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful composition, but sharpness should be better. Why not f/8 or closer? --XRay 💬 09:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With the drone I have to keep the ISOs as low as possible (100) and with the small sensor f/8 probably wouldn't be the best regarding sharpness anyway. I think around f/4.5 is about as good as it gets. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @XRay: it's not the relative, but the absolute aperture which counts. On a Mavic 2 Pro (one inch) you can multiply the relative f number by the crop factor (2.7) to get the FF equivalent. f/4.5 = f/12.5 . It means you'll get the same DOF and quality as a FF lens@f/12.5. And as a happy owner of the same drone, I can confirm the results are very good at around f/4 (not narrower). - Benh (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. I can follow your arguments. Without respecting the specials and restrictions of the drone photography the middle and the end of the train aren't sharp enough. The composition is still wonderful and I like the image. So I don't gave a contra vote. I'll reconsider the rating. --XRay 💬 11:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support usual gorgeous composition, but the noise reduction might be a little over the top. - Benh (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idyllic Poco a poco (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Camp Saddle, Craigieburn Range, New Zealand 14.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2021 at 19:47:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury (Waitaha)
Info I love the composition and the leading lines here, as well as the tiny walkers for scale. Seems different to any of Podzemnik's existing New Zealand FPs. created by Podzemnik - uploaded by Podzemnik - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful sharp photo and the person shows the size of everything. --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting pick, thanks for the nomination Cmao20. I actually like the photo a lot. Just for the context, the walkers are from my tramping club (there were a lot of us that day!). I'm so far from them because I was looking for one of our lost new member. I found him at the end! --Podzemnik (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those photos where it pays to look at it in full-res. At thumb you could be forgiven for thinking, as I did at first, that this was badly misprocessed, that the highlights were brought out too much and the contrast suppressed too much.
But then ... you look closely, and what you thought was overly lightened snow on the left is just bare beige rock, and there's nothing wrong with the image after all. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complex composition it's taken me a while to really understand, but it's a good one and a very impressive picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stuttgart - West - Johanneskirche im Feuersee zur blauen Stunde.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2021 at 17:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info The Johanneskirche (Saint John’s church) in Stuttgart, Germany was built in 1864–1876 in Gothic revival style on a peninsula in an artifical pond, the Feuersee. It was damaged in World War II and restored (with some simplifications) afterwards. While during the day (in my opinion) it does not come close to the beauty of a real Gothic church, it gains a certain magic with the evening lighting. Of course large parts of the church are always hidden by trees; this is the perspective which shows most of the church. All by me, --Aristeas (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aristeas (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, this is a very cool photo. It looks like it came out of a fairy tale. -- Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per nomination, IMO the best thing on the FPC page at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blue hour and reflection -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support All ingredients we love in Commons, blue hour, reflection, a church, great quality, ... just kidding, good job! Poco a poco (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ageratum houstonianum - Humber Arboretum.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2021 at 03:15:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae_(Sunflowers)
Info: blooming flossflower (Ageratum houstonianum); all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice flowers, but the out-of-focus flowers on the right blend too well with the main subject, causing it to appear to run out of the frame. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per King. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but I don't think the sharp flowers stand out from the out-of-focus ones well enough. Cmao20 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum - Kuninga-kuuskjalg Niitvälja2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2021 at 09:21:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Orobanchaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you give us an idea of how big these flowers are? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: flowers length is up to 3–4 cm. --Ivar (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. Please add that information to the file description and the Wikipedia article if you're inspired to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any idea which (golden) insect species is sitting there? --Cayambe (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... --Ivar (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid FP. Cmao20 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Small Inukshuk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2021 at 06:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info I found this surprisingly small Inukshuk in the bottom of a canyon near the Hoodoos Trail in Drumheller, Alberta, Canada. created by Angry Red Hammer Guy - uploaded by Angry Red Hammer Guy - nominated by Angry Red Hammer Guy -- Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA, lack of sharpness on the subject. --Peulle (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition isn't special, either. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Has some interest, but not one of the finest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I understand what you saw, and indeed the Inukshuk is nice and the surroundings are promising. However it seems the camera/lens combination was not able to deliver crisp sharpness on the Inukshuk; and there are irritating CAs, another shortcoming of the lens. In addition the colours could be better; this is (I assume) an out-of-camera JPG file, so shooting in RAW and developing later could help in that respect as it allows you to fine-tune colours, lights and shadows, etc., and also allows you to remove CAs more easily. Regarding the sharpness problem, I fear only a better lens (and maybe camera) would help; others may be able to give you suggestions on reasonable options here. Anyway, IMHO your photos show that you got the most important ability of a photographer: an eye for interesting subjects. So please keep on taking photos, even if does not work right away to get them featured ;–). No offence, I just want to help, --Aristeas (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense taken, thank you very much for this helpful comment! --Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but Aristeas is quite right, this is a nice composition and it was a great idea to take the photo. It's just your lens doesn't quite offer the crispness we would need for FP (plus the CAs are a bit annoying). But it definitely has potential. Cmao20 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 19:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black ice of Baikal.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian Federal District
Info Transparent black ice of Baikal lake near Olkhon island. Created by Sergey Pesterev - uploaded by Sergey Pesterev - nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brateevsky {talk} 15:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit tilted but it's hard to go wrong by nominating a nicely framed Baikal lake shot - Benh (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two similar pictures already featured (1, 2), and both somehow impress me more; perhaps because they show the rocks and the hills in addition to the ice and winter clouds. The upper left area is VERY unsharp, too. --A.Savin 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool. --Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin.--Ermell (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --Cayambe (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilted and saw better options --Mile (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Stunning landscape and light but distortion and blurriness make it not quite FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symphyotrichum novae-angliae2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2021 at 02:37:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae
Info: blooming New England aster (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae); all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark areas at top are distracting; make me feel like the image is upside down. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, but I know what Daniel Case means about it feeling like it's upside down. Cmao20 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: rotated Daniel Case --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedo de lobo (Lycoperdon perlatum), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-11-14, DD 334-396 FS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2021 at 13:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Order_:_Agaricales_(Gilled_Mushrooms)#Family_:_Agaricaceae
Info Young common puffball (Lycoperdon perlatum), Hartelholz, Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute! --Granada (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much of this subject is unsharp Seven Pandas (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good photo but none of it really looks 100% sharp to me, as if the frames of the focus stack are slightly misaligned. It's certainly better than anything I could do, but I'm not entirely convinced it's the best on Commons seeing how many good focus stacks we have seen lately. Cmao20 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Seven Pandas and Cmao. --Ivar (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why focus stacking when not all parts of the main subject are sharp? --Llez (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unsharpness per others ... looks like there was some slight camera movement. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Knolparasolzwam (Chlorophyllum rhacodes) 06-11-2020 (actm.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2021 at 06:42:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Agaricaceae
Info Shaggy parasol (Chlorophyllum rhacodes). Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a trophy ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel 🏆 -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PK Karachi asv2020-02 img69 New Memon Mosque.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2021 at 09:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Pakistan
Info Interior of New Memon Mosque in Karachi ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 09:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems like it already has a few fans. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a WOW factor for me, nothing special about this picture. --Gnosis (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Gnosis, it just isn't that interesting. I would say that it is a QI however. --Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 22:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, too, sort of, except that the decorations straight ahead are nice. The form isn't really working for me. However, I'd definitely take another look if there were crops on the right and left so that the columns framed the entire photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an explanation (there have been mentioned contra resons, but no pro reasons yet): I like this photo as kind of a counterpart of the splendid mosque interior images we have seen recentently. Yes, this mosque is not as exciting as these maginficent buildings, but the limited, carefully selected colours, the nice ornaments and the symmetry still create (in my eyes) a very harmonious, calming interior. It is somewhat disturbed by all the fans, but I am willing to see them (with a wink) as kind of a necessary concession to the practical needs of humans – after all, Karachi is quite a hot place ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan --StellarHalo (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photo of some lovely architecture. It does too much right for me to complain about minor faults. Cmao20 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice interior overall, but a shame that it's not quite centered (you should move a little bit to the left). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking good to me. Pakistan is also underrepresented on Commons in terms of FPs Poco a poco (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Great Gatsby Cover 1925 Retouched.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 04:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Book illustrations in color
Info created by Francis Cugat - retouched and uploaded by Flask - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading
Support -- In celebration of Gatsby entering the public domain, I'd like to present this beautiful retouched version of the 1925 first edition cover for featured picture consideration. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Below 2 MP minimum resolution. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kampung Praijing.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2021 at 17:39:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Indonesia
Info created by Fakhri Anindita - uploaded by Fakhri Anindita - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Composition is a little cluttered, WB is off, it's kind of dark at the corners and oh boy is it noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Peulle (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo but IMO too noisy for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lonely tree at Fairy lake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2021 at 14:59:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info Lonely tree at Fairy lake. Vancouver island, BC, Canada. Created by Sergey Pesterev - uploaded by Sergey Pesterev - nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A serene scene, but a bit unbalanced. The tree is almost exactly at the right 1/3 point, which requires some visual weight on the left to prevent it from becoming too right-heavy; unfortunately, the background vegetation is also on the right. I would crop out some of the left for better balance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to prevent speedy promotion unless the issue with the composition is fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I don't think your post processing does justice to your photos (too contrasty, too noisy, which is a shame for a D800@ISO200...). How sad because the setting is gorgeous. - Benh (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support per King's suggestion. Alternatively to it, I might crop out most of the reflected trees on the right so as to make the tree's solitude more apparent. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the crop the way it is. With regard to the strong level of contrast, I'd support the request to re-process the image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strongly agree with Benh, this is magical but can be so much more so --Muhammad (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would suggest to check the post-processing (see Benh’s remark and KoH’s ideas), but I still like this photo very much. --Aristeas (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it's a little noisy, but for a 43mpx photo with such a stunning composition, it's OK for me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Map of Madoera Stoomtram Maatschappij.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2021 at 17:36:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps_of_Asia
Info created by Madoera Stoomtram Maatschappij - uploaded by Bala Arizalu - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice map of Madura, but should be digitally restored for FP consideration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop etc. —kallerna (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inappropriate copyright tag: given author is a company, so "author has been dead for 100 years" does not work. Actual publisher and likely copyright owner is J.H. de Bussy ([1]), see bottom right corner. --El Grafo (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow-throated Miner - Sturt National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2021 at 13:11:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the highest resolution but good light and very nice background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit small but hey, 1200 mm...Poco a poco (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 19:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mask Diabo of Portugal used on folk fest and rituals.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2021 at 04:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive photo of a striking mask. I think Category:Carnivals of Portugal is COM:OVERCAT, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A nice and well executed subject, but before I support I'd like to know a bit more about it. Is it a piece of a museum (in this case, how old is it?) or just a modern mask you can find in a store? --Poco a poco (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a museum piece in the same place like previous FP nomination of another mask --Wilfredor (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank your for the update of the description page. Do you have more information about the item itself (especially the age, location it was found, etc.)? I believe that this kinf of information is especially importants in cases like this one. --Poco a poco (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Regardless of the quality of the photo. This human-despising Satanism mustn't be supported in whatever way. I just say: NWO! --Hockei (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic is a light interpretation, and in case it was satanic, should we erase part of our history? --Wilfredor (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past, present, future. Find the connection between satanism and the NWO. Maybe you'll understand (or you will not). --Hockei (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was joking ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. Or perhaps his account was hacked? "NWO", presumably for "New World Order", doesn't seem like a likely initialism for a German to type. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A strong oppose vote seems unlikely to be a joke... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see it as more likely to be a joke than a regular oppose !vote with the same comment, since it's so rarely used. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NWO could just be a typo for NO. Anyway, I think it's strange to oppose photos because they might be of satanic images. But OK, whatever. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read "Just say: NWO" as a pun on a popular antidrug slogan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear Nancy Reagan's voice saying that... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "NWO" is an established term in German, as well. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a joke, it shouldn't be a !vote. If it's not a joke, who says it has anything to do with "Satanism" (or one of the very rare forms of Satanism that believes in and worships Satan)? Might help explain why we have so many FPs of churches, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Church of Satan is officially registered in some jurisdictions. And "human-despising" seems to be emotional/biased, and should not have a place on this educational/encyclopedical site. It diminishes important aspects of old cultural traditions. And btw, cool mask, Support --Andrei (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are similar traditions in the alpine regions of German speaking Europe, btw. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, “classic” photo of an impressive mask. --Aristeas (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. Good isolation. -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I wish more DoF. --XRay 💬 09:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 19:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:A house in Preila, 2019-08-20-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2021 at 12:18:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
Info created by Alexey Komarov - uploaded by Alexey Komarov - nominated by Alexkom000 -- Alexkom000 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexkom000 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark for me. Also a bit lacking in wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, nothing outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, and the fence is disturbing. --Cayambe (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is an FP possible of this house in the summertime: sharper, with light on the front elevation (if possible) and shot from/zoomed further forward so as to not show the fence or most of the carport (it's too short IMO to be called a driveway). Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's nothing really wrong with this image but I don't get much outstanding about it, plus it would be better without the disturbing fence. Overall not an exceptional composition. Cmao20 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 --GRDN711 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musikverein, Viena, Austria, 2020-01-31, DD 170-172 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2021 at 12:01:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Austria
Info The Wiener Musikverein (Viennese Music Association), commonly shortened to Musikverein, is a concert hall in the center of Vienna, Austria. The building was inaugurated on 6 January 1870 and is the home of the Vienna Philharmonic. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very good and of FP quality, but did you like having the guy looking at his cellphone in the picture? I'd rather he weren't there. A guy standing and looking forward instead of at his cellphone would have been OK with me, or no-one would be fine, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek ok, I could finally convince the guy to leave the image :) Indeed to take this shot I had to wait a while as there were lots of people moving around Poco a poco (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question this is not very big building and it's cropped on both sides. Why not shoot all of it? Panorama or this angle. --Ivar (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: mainly because early this year there was a big construction area infront of it (which obviously wasn't there in 2011 as I couldn't have taken the shot from that point), indeed I couldn't get further to the back as I was leaning on a wall Poco a poco (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark IMO, and Ivar has a good point. —kallerna (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see you cloned out the man. I don't find this photo too dark at all, and the crop is fine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Ivar’s suggestion is good, but I also like this framing, concentrating on the main part, and the comparison with the photo linked by Ivar also reveals how good this photo is technically. --Aristeas (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am fine with leaving out the rest of the building. Also, the atmosphere is well lit. StellarHalo (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think focusing on the front pavilion, especially at night with illumination bringing out a lot of the contrast and thus its intricate architectural detail, is a great idea. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, sharp night photography. Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds good.--Ermell (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is my second home --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --T.Bednarz (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20200223 FIS NC COC Eisenerz Aleksander Skoglund 850 8188.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2021 at 16:58:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_snow_sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as author -- Granada (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Now this works ... the primary colors of the skiers' uniforms contrast quite well with the earth tones behind them, and the effort and competitive spirit is visible in the skiers' open mouths, close spacing, and snow being kicked up. However, I do think it could be cropped in a bit more tightly so the tree trunks at left aren't trying so hard to take the viewers' attention off the intended subjects (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggested crop. This had been on my „list“ of edits but finally came to the decision that I did not want the skier leading the pack to be too far off center. Above all the tip of his right ski, which is visible at 100%, would be cropped away then. —Granada (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chemnitz - Technische Universität - Treppenhaus (Treppe 7230).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2021 at 20:33:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created & uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was one of my favorite photos under the submissions for WLM 2020/Germany, and I still like the abstract beauty created by this staircase design. --Aristeas (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful very weak oppose I like it a lot too, but there's an awful lot of ringing/halos around the balusters and lampshaft. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel is right, but the form is too good not to feature. Cmao20 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20.--Ermell (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too much artifacts. --XRay 💬 09:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good potential but per opposers. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Excellent shot ruined through processing. --El Grafo (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masai Mara National Reserve 07 - cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2021 at 20:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)
Info created & uploaded by Snowmanstudios - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sleepy stretching position of the cheetah is irresistible to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The lighting is a bit dim for my taste but great action shot --StellarHalo (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good wildlife photo. Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be brightened. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique moment Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool, but too dark IMO. —kallerna (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 05:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, a bit dark and noisy but the camera settings look good to me and this isn't a zoo picture behind a fence Poco a poco (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great original shot, but post the processing doesn't do it justice. It looks flat and needs some brightening. --El Grafo (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)

File:Badab Sort springs - panoramio (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 06:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Alireza Javaheri - uploaded by User:Panoramio upload bot - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very beautiful place, makes me wish to visit it myself. But the quality is not sufficient: blurred edges. --A.Savin 11:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is definitely a bit soft, but (assuming that the colours are accurate) the wow-factor is sufficient for me to deliberate. Honestly not sure which way to vote on this one. Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support plenty of wow, nice framing, quality is good enough for even a large A3 sized print if viewed at a proper distance (this is not a "Where's Waldo", enjoy it as a whole). Judging from other pictures of the area on the web, colors can vary a lot there, so they appear credible to me. --El Grafo (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus and sharpness, per A. Savin. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:History History IMG 2368 Rayen Citadel, Iran (4349976732).jpg[edit]

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

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical created by Ninara - uploaded by OceanAtoll - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please use proper categories. --Andrei (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --IamMM (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Low resolution and sharpness. Also a bit dark. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This probably would have passed in 2009, but for 2020, it's too small. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice composition and dramatic view but the size, while technically enough for FP, is below par for an easily replicable architecture/landscape photo in 2021. Cmao20 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah yes, 2021. I have to get used to the new year. Thank God 2020 is over! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:TR Izmir asv2020-02 img25 Atatürk Sport Hall tram stop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2021 at 21:36:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info Two Hyundai Rotem trams at "Atatürk Spor Salonu" halt of the Konak Tram, Izmir/Turkey. ---- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not a lot of wow but still pleasant to look at. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna.--Ermell (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. Very good quality but not exciting. Could be a good VIC nomination, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Peulle (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 12:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bern Federal Palace Central Dome with Eiger 2019-10-16 18-28 (cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2021 at 13:16:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info created by Axel Tschentscher - uploaded by Axel Tschentscher - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful composition, but low sharpness I'm afraid --A.Savin 14:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per A. Savin except I am on the other side of the fence. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin, not sharp enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and scene are too good. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin--Ermell (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the composition, but it isn't sharp enough. --XRay 💬 09:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a difficult one ;–). It would be outstanding if only the dome was sharper … --Aristeas (talk)
Regretful oppose per A. Savin. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A difficult one, indeed. Very nice atmosphere & composition. But also noticably soft and without proper EXIF data. --El Grafo (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - Soldiers Shower Near Eilat.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2021 at 14:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1960-1970
Info created by David Rubinger (GPO) - uploaded by Matanya - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Another iconic photo by David Rubinger -- Andrei (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support So good quality 54 years ago. And lucky with the free licence -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive sharpness etc. for a photo of that time with moving people. --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1960-1970

File:Plane L-200 Morava in Bořetice 2020.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2021 at 18:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Airliners
Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is there a memorial to a plane? Some explanation in the file description would be helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, doesn't really look special. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with Daniel Case. This is a good quality photo and a deserving QI but there is not much outstanding in the light or composition. Cmao20 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no WOW for me. Sorry. --Gnosis (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colorful illuminated facades of buildings at night, with green, blue and pink lights, Kabukicho, Shinjuku, Tokyo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2021 at 00:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but a bit tight on the bottom and left; any chance we could see more? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 05:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, I like it but it isn't outstanding give the possibilities Tokyo offers for this kind of shots. The horizontal metal structure in the middle of the picture isn't helping either. Poco a poco (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best city night shots I've seen here ... no having to allow for a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this very pretty and appealing with all that color. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek. Cmao20 (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moro Rock Trail Sequoia July 2017 panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2021 at 00:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too hazy for me to be really impressive. --Milseburg (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sharpness is very impressive. -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Milseburg, dull light. —kallerna (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view, but per above (indeed the mountains in the back is the most interesting element in the composition) and the bottom crop feels to me a bit unfortunate, I am willing to see more from the rocks on the right Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#California

File:Rouleau de Bostan 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2021 at 22:34:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magical light. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added categories that take note of this being on the Franco-Swiss border. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Stunning view! ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 05:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape, beautiful soft light, nice colours. --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty, although as usual, I see a purple hue in your pictures Kryzstof Poco a poco (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very painterly and a composition I could easily imagine my father and several friends of mine enjoying painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epic view with perfect light. Cmao20 (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie

File:Champassak, Vat Phu (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2021 at 11:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Laos
Info created by Pierre André Leclercq - uploaded by Pierre André Leclercq - nominated by Pierre André Leclercq -- Pierre André ^(talk) 11:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André ^(talk) 11:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this resolution is too impressive. Also, it leans to the right.--Peulle (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very painterly scene, but unfortunately the image quality just isn't there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I agree, Thanks for the advices. --Pierre André ^(talk) 09:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:20200222 FIS NC COC Eisenerz PRC HS109 Men Manuel Einkemmer 850 4588.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2021 at 16:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_snow_sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure if that flag pole is disturbing. -- Granada (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmmm... looking at the small version, I was sure this was going to blow me away, but once I saw the full size, I wasn't sure anymore. I'm looking at the jumper's face in particular, are there chromatic aberrations there? Also, slight detail loss? It sort of looks like an either/or shot; either it's the best ski jumping photo I've seen... or those technical issues are too bothersome. I'm still not sure.--Peulle (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay 💬 09:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tesla - 💬 12:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great pose on the skier but the background takes too much away from that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The pose makes up for the background and the slight softness --StellarHalo (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not my kind of picture but very well done. The colours really pop out of the screen, but without looking oversaturated. Cmao20 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Stellar and Cmao. --Aristeas (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes the pole is not helping, you could have cloned it out or reduced its saturation to make it stand out less but overall very nice. Just curious is there a reason why the guy opens the mouth? just for fun? Poco a poco (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I don't know at all. Nearly all ski jumpers have their mouth open during the flight and I was wondering myself why the do so. Maybe I should ask next time when I'm down in the arena taking portraits of them. --Granada (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder because I cannot image that this is helpful in terms of aerodynamics, maybe they feel better where the wind comes from? I've no clue, we don't have this sport in Spain... Poco a poco (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Governors Island at sunset from BBP (02132p).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2021 at 15:29:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#United_States
Info Sunset sky over Governors Island, NYC. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know that FPC is typically wary of sunsets, but I found the variety of lines, shapes, and colors here interesting so I tried to capture a panorama and was happy with the result. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compo looks a bit unbalanced to me (too much sky). Also I added couple notes, where are stitching errors. --Ivar (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The composition I was going for is mainly within the sky, in some ways playing off the shape of the land. There was a bit of empty water at the bottom that I cropped out because it was just dark space that weighed down the whole. There are two rows of frames that are just sky because it's all about the sky here. Thanks for highlighting the stitching errors. Will fix shortly. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok I think I've addressed the stitching errors. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment better, but both still visible (on the water and on the clouds). --Ivar (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took another pass. A little difficult, but the clouds are varied enough to be a little forgiving I think. Feel free to restore notes if there's more, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support but maybe a little more water at the bottom to give the boat breathing room would be ideal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky is great, but I would really appreciate some more water at the bottom. --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. After all, the focus of the image is the sky. --StellarHalo (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iifar, King of Hearts, Aristeas, and StellarHalo: I've uploaded a new version with just a tiny bit more water added back in at the bottom. It's not particularly pretty water, but I think I see what you're saying in terms of composition. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you – now the ship can swim ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you might have been hoping to get but for me the sky is just too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, that it's a busy sky with lots of lines/colors/contrails, intentionally composed, is kind of the point, and what makes it something different from the standard sunset sky picture. Not everyone's cup of tea, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH --Llez (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The island is too dark, and the sky is just average. —kallerna (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprised this has got such a mixed reaction. For me it's the fact that the sky is so 'busy' that makes this a special image. The colours and shapes make it look painterly and unique. Cmao20 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't convinced at thumbnail size but after scrolling through the picture you got my support. IMHO the bottom crop is though a bit tight. Poco a poco (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palacio de Golestán, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2021 at 13:23:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, thank you for the nom! :) Poco a poco (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm always a sucker for a good picture of a beautiful Iranian palace. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo, I have seen this before and was planning to nominate at some point. Cmao20 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame those stains on the brickwork ruin the symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive Buidhe (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural_elements#Walls

File:Place Royale at night, Vieux-Québec, Quebec ville, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 03:16:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info A sharp, well-composed, high-resolution nighttime shot of Place Royale, which is where Samuel de Champlain founded the City of Québec in 1608. The church is the oldest stone church in North America. created by Wilfredor - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was here in 2019! But there appears to be a wall on the left edge of your photo... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought I remembered a similar FP, but I couldn't find it in an FP search of Category:Quebec City. Anyway, I think this is deserving, wall on the left and all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though the wall is slightly irritating. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the wall has to be there because of the lamp mounted to it. Cropping out the lamp would have killed yet more of the frame, maybe I'd make the wall to the left a bit wider - but anyway a striking image. --Granada (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'll support, if the wall is cropped out. --Ivar (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ivar here Poco a poco (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Thanks Cmao20 for this nomination. This place is full of tourists all the time but because of the pandemic it now seems like a ghost town, I clearly remember that cold night, I walked 10 blocks and I barely saw a single lonely person. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Granada. --Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Enigma51

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Radiated tortoise (Astrochelys radiata) Tsimanampetsotsa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 03:16:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Testudinidae_(Tortoises)
Info This 24mpx image of a rather beautiful - and critically endangered - species of tortoise seems to deserve FP very clearly. It's definitely the best image of this species on Commons, and I struggle to find better on the internet. View it in full-res and enjoy the sharp detail on the tortoise's shell. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful animal! I hope they don't become extinct. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute --StellarHalo (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination. I was so lucky to catch it before it ran away... Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Good quality but the shadow, specially on the head, spoils it IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no shadow on the head Poco a poco. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I really had the impression, in that case I Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fascinating pattern on the shell … --Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Testudinidae_(Tortoises)

File:Hurricane Dennis on July 7 2005 1550 UTC.jpg (delist), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2021 at 11:25:39

Info There is nothing that makes this satellite picture stand out from other satellite pictures of major hurricanes of similar image sizes. Dennis was not even at peak intensity or at major hurricane strength in this picture. If I have to guess, the news coverage surrounding this hurricane was the only reason why this photo ever got featured the same month it was taken to begin with which is ironic considering that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was just starting at the time. (Original nomination)
Delist If we are going to feature satellite images of the most hauntingly beautiful or impressive looking hurricanes, then Isabel and Eta are much better candidates imo. --StellarHalo (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like the idea of second-guessing decisions made at FPC. An FP should only be delisted if standards have risen so much that it clearly falls short, or if problems with the image (e.g. inaccurate diagram) are discovered which were not known at the time of the original nomination. This is a high quality 40 MP image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment C'mon guys. You should be able to easily see all the unsharp/blurry areas. This is not an image I would call high quality. --StellarHalo (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Stellar. Not the best satellite image of a hurricane, really, and given the direction the climate's going I'm regrettably sure that there will be even more visually striking ones to choose from. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish I knew what the parallel lines at the bottom were, but this is IMO way too good to delist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Far from outstanding amongst pictures in this class, but at the same time I feel like delist should be left for those images that were obviously a mistake to promote or else which fall a long way below current quality standards, and I'm not sure I see that here. Cmao20 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get that some of you are not pleased that I have been on a delisting spree for months already but I promise you this is one of the last handful of FPs I am invested in delisting. What I am trying to say is that there a ton of satellite pictures of tropical cyclones like this with similar sizes and it does not make sense that this particular one should have the star. Also, I heavily doubt it would have been promoted had it been nominated at the end of 2005 with the likes of Katrina and Rita and those are from 2005 alone. Other years' hurricane seasons have Isabel, Irma, Harvey, and Laura to name a few. --StellarHalo (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. I, for one, very much appreciate your efforts to go through our old stuff and clean it up a bit. FPC is for the best of the best. Sometimes, what seems to be a huge deal at the moment will look very different with a few years of distance, and then we should be flexible enough to re-evaluate. Doesn't mean the voters were wrong at the time, they just didn't have the full picture yet. --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't think this is one of the best hurricane pics on Commons. Buidhe (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 3 keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. /--A.Savin 14:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opengebarsten lege vrucht (nap) van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) 18-12-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 06:40:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae
Info Cracked empty fruit (cup) of beech ( Fagus sylvatica ) with two leaf buds. Focus stack of 14 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done.--Ermell (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Buidhe (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prehnite - Southbury, Connecticut, USA.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 13:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imo a sharp and attractive focus stack. Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zillertal in Tyrol, Austria-panorama-cut PNr°0746c.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 16:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
Info created, uploaded and nominated by D-Kuru, The image is also available as .tif and with a bigger vertical view -- D-Kuru (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little too much sky. Also, could you offer the full-resolution version? Since this was a 5-frame panorama I'm sure you have a larger version. The average panorama that we end up featuring these days is generally over 20 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There only is one with a bigger vertical view but there is none that is higher resoluted. The image was taken with my old 40D so that limited the resolution. The 5 frames were shot pretty close together because it was a very sunny days and I wanted to avoid images made useless by lens flares. In other words: I'm not holding back a version that is higher resoluted. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per KoH, it's a very nice panorama but I think the resolution is a bit low for FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition with some much empty blue sky isn't convincing for FPC. Also the construction on the right site is also disturbing. The resoluton is't outstanding, but the labeling is. --Milseburg (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful scene, but oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trumpeter swan, East Point Park1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2021 at 21:50:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Cygnus
Info: trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) in Toronto. Tagged as part of the on-going reintroduction programme (after the species had been extirpated from Ontario in 1886). All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite work for me, sorry. --Peulle (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I get why the tag is important, and I'm sure it would be appreciated at VI with the explanation of why it's there, but for FP I find it a bit distracting, I'd prefer if we could just have a photo of this beautiful bird without any tagging. Cmao20 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddhist alms in Si Phan Don.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2021 at 02:02:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works aesthetically on a very subtle level, with the line of the boys reinforced by the guardrail behind them, and the red and orange robes suggesting a connection, yet difference, between them. I don't know what's going on here exactly, but I know something is, and the photograph makes me want to know. That's why it works. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The differing colours of the robes help this composition to work really well. Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, good timing, good composition, great quality Poco a poco (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 15:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Snowy path near Lake Joseph, Muskoka 1.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2021 at 02:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info created by Ajshul - uploaded by Ajshul - nominated by Ajshul -- Ajshul (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ajshul (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and a really nice composition. Rather painterly in conception, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks a bit too ordinary for me. The resolution isn't impressive either.--Peulle (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna--Ermell (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition but the image quality is a little bit low considering the small resolution. I like it artistically, but I'm not sure it is one of our best. Cmao20 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would suggest cropping in more tightly on the tunnel but that's where the resolution has the most problems. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A beautiful scene that I could support if the resolution were higher. In general, we expect at least 10 MP for landscape photos in 2021, and I would only vote for a photo below that threshold if the "wow" factor is COM:POTY-level. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture needs indeed a closer framing and a portrait format. It reminds me a bit to this FP. Poco a poco (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Châteaux du Pays cathare - Château de Peyrepertuse - 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2021 at 07:57:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very striking and excellent quality, so FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward perspective, technically rather weak, maybe due harsh light. —kallerna (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the perspective: this photo really shows how impregnable the castle was before the invention of firearms. Well, almost impregnable … --Aristeas (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Aristeas --Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The POV is indeed a bit awkward to me, using a drone here would be great. My main concern here is the sharpness, otherwise a nice subject Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Only weak because I think the light is a bit harsh, it would look more interesting if it wasn't under a featureless blue midday sky. But the subject is enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portishead Lighthouse.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Alexey Komarov - uploaded by Alexkom000 - nominated by Alexkom000 -- Alexkom000 (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexkom000 (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pretty sunset and undoubtedly much more beautiful in person, but too noisy and not an exceptional composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but technically not FP --Milseburg (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's an FP here, but this isn't it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is going to be a controversial vote but I think this is FP to me. I really like the composition and I feel like if one of our regulars had presented this composition it wouldn't have got any criticism. The colours are subtly beautiful. The only problem is that the technical quality is a little bit subpar with blurring and noise in places, but for a decent-sized image I am willing to forgive it. Cmao20 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, that's controversial because you're saying those of us who are opposing lack integrity, which is not a nice accusation. You should tread more carefully. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well apologies if you felt offended. That was not my intention. I was only trying to say that I feel like compositions worse than this go without criticism a lot at FP. Apologies if it came out wrong. Cmao20 (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theyyam make-up 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2021 at 07:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite interesting and a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i think its too dark --Andrei (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken just around 4a.m. Flash was not allowed. Only single source of light was there. Usually Theyyam at night is being performed in low lights. Andrew J.Kurbiko and StellarHalo Pls consider. -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Andrei --StellarHalo (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support An original an nice subject but weak due to the technical issues Poco a poco (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: per above. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Granville Stuart 1883 by L. A. Huffman.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2021 at 01:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Male
Info created by L. A. Huffmann - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and historically important portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Peulle (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Male

File:Pond pod farou in 2020 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2021 at 23:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the photo, but why is there a category for a church? Is it vaguely visible through the trees if you know what you're looking for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: It's because the pond is actually attached to the church (see also this file). Feel free to remove the category if you find it inappropriate though. --T.Bednarz (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above, but I'd support removing the category because we don't see the church in the photo. Let's see what others say, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the name of the pond Pod farou means literally Below the rectory. Just for the record. --T.Bednarz (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That can be explained in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added an hour ago. --T.Bednarz (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose Nice mood but not enough to make it an FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, atmospheric semi-abstract photography of the kind FPC should encourage more. Cmao20 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool and unusual, that makes it a FP for me. Buidhe (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coprolito, Calatayud, España, 2021-01-05, DD 001-039 FS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2021 at 09:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Others
Info coprolite, Calatayud, Aragon, Spain. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all parts are sharp (in a focus stacked picture I expect the whole subject being sharp), also some parts very grainy --Llez (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you, Llez, please, add a note about what you see? Poco a poco (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See notes --Llez (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Llez, I disagree with your assessment. Neither I see grainy areas nor consider those "unsharp" areas relevant. Apart from the fact that I'm offering 50 MPx, and see similar issues in the Prehnite candidate below (20 not 50 MPx) so I sadly have to come to the conclusion that you are using double standards here. Poco a poco (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting and sharp enough for me. I'd like you to add the estimated age of the coprolite, though, if there's any way for you to find that out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek I did some research, thanks for prompting me to do so. It belongs to the miocene, but I cannot guarantee that it's human (or rather hominidae), so I took that hint away. Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good. Thanks for checking into that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some of Ivar's criticisms are fair, but per Ikan Kekek this is FP for me. The extra resolution means that it's not fair to be quite as picky at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many technical flaws, flat light. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Podzemnik Same here, do you see those "flaws" in a resolution of 20 Mpx? and what do you mean with flat light, how many sources and where would you then expect (I used 3, a ring light on the lens and 2 additional sources on the sides)? Poco a poco (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: Well, if you look here or here, the light in these photos looks just great and the background immediately strikes you. Perhaps using a different background would make your photo look more wowy. Your subject is interesting of course but I believe that good photography means to make even uninteresting subjects interesting (like a shoe or a pomelo :). --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info As I did with the petrified wood candidate I also decided to offer here an alt version with a ~~white~~ black background. Pinging @Llez, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, and Cmao20: Poco a poco (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine by me Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh clipping, unnatural background -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't stand in the way of this, but I prefer the natural background. It feels like it's just floating here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I take it back and propose an new alt right away. Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:BM 93 Talent Jora Bru.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2021 at 06:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Naghsh-e rostam, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 12.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2021 at 11:59:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Reliefs
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Relief of triumph of Shapur I over Valerian at Naqsh-e Rostam (ca. 241–272 AD), located 3 km north of Persepolis. It is the most impressive of eight Sasanian rock carvings cut into the cliff beneath the tombs of their Achaemenid predecessors. This carving depicts a famous scene in which the Roman Emperor, Valerian, is kneeling before Shapur I and asking for mercy. Shapur defeated Valerian at the Battle of Edessa, in which the entire Roman army was destroyed and Valerian became Shapour's prisoner. This was the first and only time a Roman emperor was taken prisoner. The Emperor Philip the Arab is depicting standing and Gordian III is dead at the feet of Shapur's horse. Poco a poco (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM متشکرم! Btw I made some adjustments of perspective/curves Poco a poco (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's really compelling. Excellent nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish Diego visit Iran once more, his Iran album is excellent. --Gnosis (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo, a clear FP. Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition .--Pierre André ^(talk) 15:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! In fact 05:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ahmad^talk 06:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spinnennetz IMG 8414.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida # Spideri's
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a beautiful pearl necklace :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 07:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 15:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Unsharp in a lot of areas, but in this case it doesn't detract from the overall wow of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ahmad^talk 06:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida # Spideri's

File:Wasserfall Eisgraben.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2021 at 15:50:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Waterfall Waterfall at Eisgraben in a nature reserve of the Rhön Mountains. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Cmao20 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 15:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those situations where it was better not to use long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rock Outcroppings in the Libyan Desert.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2021 at 18:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info According to Google Earth, the main feature is Jabal Arkanu in the Libyan Desert. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I almost always like this kind of picture. I wish NASA gave an explanation of why they used a blue cast, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Massive" without a scale is useless. 2002 quality, but work of NASA, we can expect more... —kallerna (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kallerna: I have edited in new info in case you want to know the scale of the place. StellarHalo (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I honestly wouldn't know what exactly I was looking at without the title, and even then I still have to really think about it; for all I know it could be cellular structures under a microscope. And the composition is not interesting enough to keep that from mattering. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I knew that this nomination is going to be divisive. Oh well. StellarHalo (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of the Sacred Heart of Rodez 33.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2021 at 22:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The snow on the roof combines nicely with the grey weather, quality is good, wow effect moderate Poco a poco (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wow-factor is subtle but definitely there, the composition is really satisfying. Cmao20 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco and Cmao. --Aristeas (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 18:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, best of Commons? —kallerna (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Etangs de Bassies 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 20:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Ariège
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like how the lake is cut off on the right. I feel the square aspect ratio is not helping here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is a bit boring for me. It looks OK, but "OK" isn't enough.--Peulle (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light, same as :

Oppose Huh per Basile. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wroclaw-zespol Dworca Glownego.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 11:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train_stations
Info created by User:Jar.ciurus - uploaded by User:Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light. This one was better, in my opinion. Unbalanced composition with a tight cut at the right, while the left side is visible in full -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems a little overexposed, but I still don't think that would make this work as well as the night shot did. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light works for me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking in wow factor. Just a QI. --Peulle (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good quality photo but compared to the other FP it is not as compelling either in terms of composition or light. Cmao20 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thank you all! --Andrei (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Land Rover Defender (L663) at IAA 2019 IMG 0711.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2021 at 09:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Alexander-93 - uploaded by Alexander-93 - nominated by Alexander-93 -- Alexander-93 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parts of vehicle behind the shrubs, boring composition, dull lighting --StellarHalo (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background, unfortunate perspective, main subject partly covered (and rather soft at barely 8 megapixels), foreground too dominant, visible chromatic aberration. --Kreuz schnabel 07:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So what's supposed to be the wow here? That this car is parked at a crazy angle? Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Plus the sharpness is not really good, clipped whites, and there is no geocode. --A.Savin 21:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symphyotrichum novae-angliae3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2021 at 06:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae
Info: blooming New England aster (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae); all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this better than the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something about the arrangement of the three flowers makes this a satisfying composition and better than the ordinary flower photo. Cmao20 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks underexposed or taken in harsh light. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae

File:Alice Neilsen's production of Victor Herbert's The Fortune Teller.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2021 at 13:58:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by The U.S. Lithograph Co. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I wonder if those corner bracket marks should have been removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reluctant to remove parts of the original printing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think they were added. Do you know why? "Cut here?" -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Ikan Kekek: Actually, I'm pretty sure they're meant to help the plates line up. Gives one mark to line up to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asics Gel-Cumulus 22.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2021 at 17:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Clothing_and_textiles
Info Asics Gel-Cumulus 22, men's running shoes. All by --Mile (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very smart way of also showing the sole! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and high level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though maybe better should be a square image and bit tighter crop. --A.Savin 12:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin Done. I was wondering if more squarish would be suitable. For main diagonale would be OK, but not for reflected part with goes horizontal. However after some observing with both options, i put a bit cropped option. --Mile (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support So rare for photos of products here to be commercial-quality. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done. Cmao20 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good product photo. --Aristeas (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Bohémienne endormie.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2021 at 20:16:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#People
Info Famous painting of Henri Rousseau. Created by Oakenchips - uploaded by Oakenchips - nominated by Oakenchips -- Oakenchips (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction of the famous painting. --Aristeas (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Donaudurchbruch P1230071.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 15:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany # Bavaria/Nature in Bavaria
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best sharpness for a 10.2 MP image, and a bit too much water at the bottom. Also some green tint. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely place, but I'm not sure I find the composition convincing, and I agree with KoH about the sharpness being a little below par. Cmao20 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like it was taken with a cutting-edge phone ... cutting-edge for 2010. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Autor nieznany, św. Anna - fragment postaci. Malowidło ścienne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 11:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by National Museum Warsaw - uploaded by National Museum Warsaw - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just love it! --Kritzolina (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and important - nice find. Cmao20 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fascinating history of how many of these frescoes ended up in Poland. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity

File:Morning Star Villa Cape May October 2020.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 05:24:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but satisfying photo. Cmao20 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting house, but the vegetation in the foreground is a bit too dominant for my taste. Maybe a slightly longer focal length could have alleviated that. --El Grafo (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per El Grafo. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others - I like the building, but the bushes have more presence than the building and aren't nearly as interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delleboersterheide, natuurgebied van het It Fryske Gea. 25-12-2019. (actm.) 23.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 16:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Betulaceae
Info A nicely formed multi-trunk birch. In beautiful winter light in the afternoon.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Enigma51
Support All your photos of trees are sensitive. I think this is one of your best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support with specified file description. --Ivar (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. However, I did not get it right. Must be something to change inthe description?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes: I already added info to the file description. Main subject on the photo is silver birch (Betula pendula). --Ivar (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (May be a touch too warm.) --XRay 💬 13:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is showing subtle colors that make the image special -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very elegant composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support What some people will do on Christmas ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Colin (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Білокузьминівські-стовпи-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 11:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cretaceous Belokuzminiv rocks near the village Bilokuzminivka, Donestk oblast, Ukraine

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info Cretaceous Belokuzminiv rocks near the village Bilokuzminivka, Donestk oblast, Ukraine. Created by Konstantin Brizhnichenko - uploaded by Konstantin Brizhnichenko - nominated by DimasSolo -- DimasSolo (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DimasSolo (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please upload the photographs without JPEG compression. There are too many artifacts. --XRay 💬 13:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't made this, because i don't author --DimasSolo (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Dramatic photo with nice colours, but a few technical issues - JPEG artefacts, blurring and vignetting in the corners, and slight unsharpness. It's not too far off FP though! Cmao20 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll probably support, but it would be much better if User:Brizhnichenko would come back to Commons and deal with the objections above, so that this beautiful photo can have a reasonable chance to pass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buchkirchen Pfarrkirche St. Jakob-9332.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 19:07:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info The high altar of the Catholic parish church hl. Jakob in Buchkirchen, erected in 1893, together with the eighteenth-century side altars. Although the detail in this image can't quite match the stitched church panoramas by authors such as Diliff and DXR, it is really impressive for a single-frame photo - easily good enough for anyone looking for a high-quality illustration of this church - and I feel that it is such a beautiful church and such a well-framed image that it deserves to be a featured picture. created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to get a raised viewpoint. -- Colin (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support no. 10 --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piedras Rojas, salar de Aguas Calientes, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 72.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 19:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Chile#Atacama Region
Info The Piedras Rojas ('red rocks') in the Atacama salt pan, Chile. The colours and composition are really striking. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahhh, great place, thank you for the nom, Cmao20! --Poco a poco (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive place and composition. --Aristeas (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Chile#Atacama Region

File:140531 Forellen auf dem Grill.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 14:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food : Processing, preparing and cooking
Info created & uploaded by Code - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support refreshingly different and well executed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame this author doesn't seem to be around anymore. They often came up with some clever and unusual photos. Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe the author that these wrapped things are trouts and not sausages, pickles or anything else ;-) --Llez (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Smokin' ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wish we could see the fish outside the foil, though. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different Poco a poco (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink#Food : Processing, preparing and cooking

File:SL Ella asv2020-01 img12 Ravana Temple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2021 at 12:41:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors
Info Statue of Reclining Buddha in the Ravana Rock Temple Ella, Sri Lanka ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically fine, quite average motif, no wow. —kallerna (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No way average to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could be sharper in some places, but still FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a lot going on in this image, and maybe it's being tall but my impulse is to duck when I look at this image. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan --Kritzolina (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not convinced by subject and commposition here, quality is though good Poco a poco (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Difficult subject to make photographically interesting. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tübingen - Stiftskirche - Chorgestühl - König David (weiches Licht).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 14:36:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors
Info Wooden bust of King David, dated to 1491, choir stalls of St. George's Collegiate Church in Tübingen, Germany.
This bust is one of the most beautiful parts of the choir stalls. I have tried to photograph it again and again over the years, but each time the light was either too harsh or just boring. On that winter afternoon, the dim light from the windows, together with the interior lighting and candlelight, produced a charming illumination. So I decided to take something like an ‘environmental portrait’ of the bust in order to capture some of the mood as well. All by me, --Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Kritzolina (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice "portrait" of the statue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice photo, I love what the bokeh does to the stained glass window. Cmao20 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support So good it keeps the window in the background from being a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It feels like a still from a documentary. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Klasse! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes indeed. -- Colin (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cloisters of Moissac Abbey.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2021 at 07:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other or Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info created & uploaded by Benh - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprised it's only 21mm. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something was wrong with my EXIF (probably how I declared the lens). It's actually 12mm (Samyang f/2.0) - Benh (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst. Cmao20 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably not the best time (with direct light there would have been a great shadow profile) but overall very nice, the ceiling is a plus. Poco a poco (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pierre André ^(talk) 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tronco de árbol fosilizado, parque nacional del Bosque Petrificado, Arizona, Estados Unidos, 2021-01-05, DD 081-103 FS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2021 at 15:20:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Others
Info Petrified tree fossil, Petrified Forest National Park, State of Arizona, USA. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite strong halo-effect, could be fixed. The canvas texture could be also cloned out. —kallerna (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kallerna: I've reduced the halo effect and also reduced the texture of the surface a bit --Poco a poco (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems sharp and beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info I offer here an alt version with a pure white background. Pinging @Cmao20 and Kallerna: Poco a poco (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is better.--Ermell (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 23:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It does look better. Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting and crude cut-out on white. An FP-level "on white" photo should achieve that with careful product placement and lighting, not with the crop tool in Photoshop. This subject needs raking light to bring out the texture and form. It appears have have been light evenly from front and side and there is glare on the shiny cut surface, which significantly reduces contrast. -- Colin (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Others

The chosen alternative is: File:Tronco de árbol fosilizado, Arizona, Estados Unidos, 2021-01-05, DD 081-103 FS-Alt.jpg

File:2017, cuba, jardines aggressor, patricia, red lipped blennie (36883094923).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2021 at 13:56:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Blenniidae_(Combtooth_Blennies)
Info created by q phia - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Fantastic image. Cmao20 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --Wilfredor (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the false-eyelashes look ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Blenniidae_(Combtooth_Blennies)

File:Gele korstzwam (Stereum hirsutum) 30-12-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2021 at 16:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Stereaceae
Info Stereum hirsutum valse turkey tail on dead branch. Focus stack of 11 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours, soft background. --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Caramel pastries 🥞 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I wonder, compared to your 01 version, whether the colour temp is a little too blue in this one? -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: with this version I had some grazing light. The other version was the sun gone.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bad Lippspringe 25 Pfg 1921.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 11:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Money
Info Considering its low face value, a print of extraordinary quality: 25 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of 1921, created by Josef Dominicus, issued by the Town of Bad Lippspringe (Germany), reproduced from an original banknote, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting Notgeld banknote in excellent reproduction. --Aristeas (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rübenlader IMG 7492.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 17:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles # Other land vehicles
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharp shot from a special machine.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colourful and well composed. Maybe a bit too warm in terms of white balance. Cmao20 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good QI/VI-type photo, but no great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arm is too close to the left hand side. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop at the left is too tight -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan --StellarHalo (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Ermell (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Improved, and you should ping every voter. I haven't decided whether I like the composition enough to be neutral or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess I still feel that not being able to see the lower right corner of the vehicle is sufficient to make this a solidly good picture but not an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It feels a bit dark... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spb DLT Store asv2019-09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 13:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Interior of the DLT store (heritage department store) in Saint Petersburg ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a distortion in the top two corners or is the architecture actually like that?. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The roof is curved towards the camera position, and so is the upper gallery. --A.Savin 14:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's that classic blue and orange colour combination! Cmao20 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 09:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some ringing in the corners, but that's nowhere near enough to be problematic. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Bauerschaft Börnste -- 2021 -- 4408 (bw).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 07:30:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 07:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info The crop … First of all, I like it. But another crop with the whole tree is nearly impossible. One step backwards and a tree from the left would be visible and the branches would cross all the other branches. (At this image some branches from the left are cloned out. The photographs was made with a 20 mm lens, may be 14 mm would be a possible choice. But, sorry, I haven't such a lens. --XRay 💬 05:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 07:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The black and white doesn't work for me in this case. The crop is not idea either - I'd like to see more of the trees since they feature so prominently.--Peulle (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, although I agree I'd like to see a bit more of the trees at the top. Cmao20 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The current crop sectioning the branches is disturbing me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to disagree with Cmao20: I find the composition somewhat awkward (sorry, for not being more specific, that's the best I can come up with). --El Grafo (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. I think I'll nominate another image from this series. --XRay 💬 10:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay 💬 11:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wroclaw- Kosciol NMP Na Piasku.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 13:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull lighting, no wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have described summer in Poland :) --Andrei (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above. Really nice motif but the light is quite dull and the background is quite cluttered. I appreciate it's probably difficult to get a better angle for an urban motif, but it makes it less than outstanding to me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only dull light but kind of hard to be impressed by a church that looks like it's crouching from this angle, especially with such a busy background. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Andrei (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Миколаївська церква в ранковому тумані.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 07:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Ukraine
Info created by Vian - uploaded by Vian - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2021 (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. --Andrei (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Andrei, only two nominations are allowed at once - but I might try this one again when you have a nomination slot free Pavlo1. I would vote for it, on balance. It's a bit noisy, but IMO OK for a high-resolution (24mpx) image, and the motif is stunning, as is the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pavlo1: I would like to second Cmao20’s comment. Could you try to contact Vian and ask them if they could reduce the noise in the unsharp areas a bit? Then this would make a very valuable nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trumpeter swan, East Point Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 22:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Cygnus
Info: trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) in Toronto. Tagged as part of the on-going reintroduction programme (after the species had been extirpated from Ontario in 1886). The tags are somewhat less prominent compared to the previous nom, and I like this composition more. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Animal~~ Rock cut at the left, the composition doesn't work for me, and I find the badge distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Cut where? It's in front of the piece of land. No dispute on your other points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's a rock, but I find this part distracting, with the horizontal composition granting special importance to it. The badge is another weakness -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same specimen as last week, Miss Sophie? As for composition, this is much better, and excellent sharpness. However, the salient badge still lowers wow on my side, and the shadows are very dark and blueish. --Kreuz schnabel 07:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same specimen indeed, but who might this Miss Sophie be?.. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably an allusion to Dinner for One, a comedy sketch in English language, but extremely popular especially in German. Miss Sophie is celebrating her 90th birthday, and like every year she has invited the same old friends – but all of them are dead now, and so the poor butler James must not only serve the meal and pour the drinks, but he must also play all the guests, i.e. drink the toasts to Miss Sophie, etc. Becoming drunk more and more, James asks Miss Sophie again and again: “The same procedure as last year, Miss Sophie?”, and she always replies: “The same procedure as every year, James.” --Aristeas (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Left side too dark.--Peulle (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: lifted the shadows and reduced the chroma cast. User:Kreuzschnabel, Peulle--The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not bothered by the tag. Great pose, but the rock is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special composition and harsh lighting and the tag. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Info: Alternative with tags removed. Pinging @Kreuzschnabel, Peulle, and Basile Morin: . --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rock distracting at the left, cloned part of the bird too obvious technically, also per Peulle above -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the pose/look, the water droplets on the feathers, and the quiet bokeh of the waves as background. --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please don't photoshop the subject. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2[edit]

Info: Alternative with tags removed and the rock cropped out. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Too bad the rest of the rock could not be cropped out StellarHalo (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best light, distracting rock. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please don't photoshop the subject. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flowers at the Great Salt Lake.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 06:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United States
Info created by Altochic - uploaded by Altochic - nominated by Altochic -- Altochic (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Altochic (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Welcome to Commons, User:Altochic. Sorry, the picture quality is not good - extremely noisy and looks like a poor-quality cellphone picture. FPC is for a very small percentage of photos on this site that are considered to be among the best of the best. You may want to spend some time at COM:Photography critiques. I hope you find your time here rewarding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I have taken the freedom to fix the missing usernames (and description) in the nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hipp hipp hurra! Konstnärsfest på Skagen - Peder Severin Krøyer.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 05:50:47

Info An improved version was uploaded. Also, per Cart. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace with File:'Hip, Hip, Hurrah! Artist Festival at Skagen', by Peder Severin Krøyer (1888) Demisted with DXO PhotoLab Clearview; cropped away black border edge.jpg --StellarHalo (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I will let you guys decide whether or not the replacement itself is good enough for FP. Never mind. --StellarHalo (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never seen this painting, but to my eyes, both photos look unfocused. If I'm right, can we delist this without replacing it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not actually sure if this is how the paintings look in real life either. If you would like to delist without replacing, I am sure you could and feel free to do so. StellarHalo (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of the most famous paintings in Sweden. I have seen it and like Ikan says, the photos here are not as focused and crisp as we have come to expect of FPs. For a good copy, you should be able to see the bold brush strokes. There is also a bit of "haze" in this photo, making the black areas gray and colors washed out. --Cart (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist without replacement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Cart. The promotion of this FP was indeed a mistake. --StellarHalo (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Cart. I hope we will get a better photo of this famous paining. --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Cart; the bar for digitized paintings has undeniably gotten higher since this one. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not well-focussed enough to be an FP quality painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --A.Savin 14:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /--A.Savin 13:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jefferson Trust Company Hoboken September 2020 HDR 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 23:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light. Could perhaps do with a bit of selective sharpening at the top of the building, but I trust your judgment on these things. Cmao20 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice blue hour but the building is not special enough in my view. The left side is boring and makes the composition unbalanced. (Incidentally, the picture seems to suffer from a resizing, sabotaging the natural aspect, especially the round clock which is now oval) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basile’s hint about the aspect ratio seems convincing, I wonder how the photo would look if you would change the aspect ratio accordingly … --Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would work for me if it were cropped much closer on the left and otherwise left as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow is unfortunate. As other noted there are geometry errors and the horizontals and verticals aren't. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Église Saint-Maurice (Ebersmunster) (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 08:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 08:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tight on the sides, I couldn't back down anymore. -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 08:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The upper area is unsharp, on the sky there are artefacts or something. I also have the impression it has some yellowish/green cast (if you compare to other available pictures auch as that one). --A.Savin 16:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking in wow factor. Just a QI. --Peulle (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The subject is impressive to me, but I wish it were sharper at the top. Cmao20 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color cast, per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brucite - Killa Saifullah, Pakistan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 06:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad Rappenau - Saline - Salinenamtsgebäude - Ansicht von Westen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 19:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info An attractive image of some mid-C19th architecture in Bad Rappenau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. IMO a very striking photo with good colours and excellent image quality. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for the nomination, Cmao20! --Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pierre André ^(talk) 10:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can really see the architectural "texture". —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coprolito, Calatayud, España, 2021-01-13, DD 001-029 FS.jpg, featured , featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2021 at 20:41:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Others
Info Coprolite (fossilized excrement) from the miocene (between 23.03 to 5.333 millions of years ago) found in Calatayud, Spain. As I don't give up so easily and not just me believe that the items is FP-worthy I bring a new nominamation after this one failed with a "cleaner" surface, 100% sharpness and still at full resolution. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sharpness seems better this time. I would be surprised if it didn't pass now. Cmao20 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I hope, Cmao20, there are indeed some improvements here although I'm aware that there is still things than I can (and will) improve overall. --Poco a poco (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes for this one. --Cayambe (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better version --Llez (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Podzemnik in the previous nomination: the lighting is bad. In the previous nom, the lighting is described as "a ring light on the lens and 2 additional sources on the side". The ring light is a mistake IMO, and the left/right lights shouldn't be equal. The lighting should emphasise the form (twisting round shape, with some parts closer and some further) and texture (a gritty quartz-like stone?) and neither are apparent at all. Despite the 39MP there is very little surface detail apparent and it sort of looks like an unsharpened 18MP image that has been upsized. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compare File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg, which is lit from a flash aimed at the ceiling and so providing a soft light from above. The curved form of the blue discs and the silver edging is immediately apparent: you don't have to know or guess the shape. The textured metallic-effect plastic is glitteringly rough against the smooth metal centre and all the folds of the metal grill are clear to the eye. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) The lighting on left and right wasn't equal 2) without a ligth source at the front the answer here would have been without any doubt "bad lighting" the object is in shadow. The image is IMHO sharp, specially if I compare it to other noms lately of clearly less MP and where the statement would be "although it's a 25 MP image it sort of looks like an unsharpened 10MP image". Lighting on the top doesn't make any sense here as the interesting view is not from the top but from the side. Poco a poco (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend "Light ― Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting". The 6th edition is due out in April.

Poco, I'd like to know why you (and any of those who supported) think this is among the finest images on Commons and has "wow". Corprolites are extremely common: they were once mined on an industrial scale, as fertilizer. I recommend visiting the Poozeum for all you could possibly want to learn. This example appears unexceptional, without notable inclusions that might enlighten us as to the source animal or their diet. Image-wise, we have a beige blob that has been unimaginatively placed on a piece of white paper, and lit by exactly the wrong light. Although it is focus stacked, that is nothing special these days, and a convex solid shape is the easiest subject to stack. The image may be 39MP but that's just a lot of pixels of beige and grey, not herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically....

As a specimen photo, I suggest trying to photograph it isolated without any visible support/base. Many images of fossils this colour are on a black background, rather than white, which should be achieved with lighting/backgrounds in the scene rather than with the scissors in Photoshop. The lighting needs to bring out the twisting form, and since one bit of this poo looks the same as ever other bit, we don't need or want to see all of it as evenly lit as every other bit. You could, for example, just light the top twisting portion and leave the bottom fading out dark. It may not, to be honest, be worth the effort. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the book hint, will look into it.

Regarding your comment about how common coprolites are or not, I don't believe that you are objective and fair. We have never had something like this on Commons, why that if they are so common? It's like if you tell me that a candidate of mine is not worthy because there are millions of sardines or crabs. The point to me is that so far non of us came accross something like that and photographed it with the target of achieving good quality (or maybe it's hard to find good coprolite images with a free license on the web). You can add so many links you want, still coprolites are underrepresented here.

The candidate above is not isolated, there's a visible support and I didn't use any scissors from Photoshop, indeed I didn't even use Photoshop. Regading the choice whether the background should be black or white I took an shot in both and opted to propose this one to FPC but I just uploaded for you the version with black background, see here, you like it? Poco a poco (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say this candidate used Photoshop; I was saying how an on on-black isolated photo should IMO be done. I know you have uploaded images that do use Photoshop scissors and I don't think that is FP level photography. The other image doesn't have a black background: it is grey. But can you (and others) not see how in places the lighting in the other photo is superior. Look at the bottom left and along the top. The glancing light brings out the shape of the stone, where in this nom the shape and bumps are virtually hidden. I think it is a shame the other photo doesn't show the twisting form, for it is that form that makes it clear to be a coprolite rather than random lumps of rock.

There are lots of things that are common that Commons lacks a huge quantity of images of. That doesn't change them from being common. I imagine nearly all households own a steam iron, yet there are about the same number of photos of such as there are of coprolites on Commons. There are millions of Philips electric shavers in the world yet we have only a handful of images. Does that permit me to take a very ordinary photo in bad light and expect a gold star? So, your argument doesn't hold examination. We are here to judge if it is among the best photos on Commons, and has "wow". By that standard, I'm judging this as a studio photo taken at home with ample opportunity to select a visually interesting subject and to take it with the highest level of skill and technical achievement. We have hundreds of thousands of professionally photographed museum exhibits on Commons, why are we giving a star to a beige blob on a piece of paper? Well we know why, and it is nothing to do with the photograph. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Colin and my previous comments. Light is everything. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there any idea what animal this is from? Seven Pandas (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky to say, it cannot be human because it's too old for that (in that case it would have been a hominid). An expert suggested that according to the spot where I found it and its appearance it could a hyena poop but I cannot say with certainty Poco a poco (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral sort of like it but see the concerns too. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin & Podzemnik. --El Grafo (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Others

File:Fosil de coral (Cunnolites elliptica), Goulmima, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 294-400 FS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 18:50:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Top and bottom view of a fossil of Cunnolites elliptica found in Goulmima, Morocco. The fossil belongs to the late Cretaceous (aprox. 90 million years old) and has a diameter of 3.7 centimetres (1.5 in) c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is crying out for raking light. It isn't a banknote in a photocopier. -- Colin (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it Colin without a light on the top and looked a bit awkward (the center was too dark) and finally opted for this version. I kind of agree with KoH that your proposal would result in a more artistic version but not as encyclopedic as this one. If you like I can upload a different version with raking light (give me 1-2 days). Btw, you didn't give me feedback about the new coprolite version I included in my last comment. Poco a poco (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This neutral lighting is fine for me, it makes a great encyclopedic illustration. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add the stratigraphic layer and the size to the file description; as far as I can see this species is now placed again in the genus Cyclolithes by Löser (2009, p. 133) (see the comment of "abyssunder" here), so the correct name is Cyclolites ellipticus Lamarck, 1801, see also the nomenclature of WoRMS. --Llez (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll await the resolution of this and then will support, because it's impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llez, Ikan Kekek: I've updated the description page with the information here (that's something I eventually always do) and also added there and here the age (along with the epoch). Regarding Cyclolites vs Cunnolites I'm a bit confused. As you can see in the file history I actually uploaded it first as Cyclolites (without an "h") ellipticus but then figured out that on Commons the synonym Cunnolites was used, so I renamed it. Should I then rename my file back and all others along with the categories? Poco a poco (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support As Cunnolites elliptica is a category in commons, it would be a lot of work to create a new category, transfer all pictures and rename the files (I also would not rename a file during a nomination, too). I propose therefore to add in the file description "...a fossil of Cunnolites elliptica ( = Cyclolites ellipticus Lamarck, 1801) found...", I think, this is the easiest way to solve the problem. --Llez (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. My father used to do product photography for many years. Naturally in product photography the customers often cry for the most striking lighting; but not always: for some kinds of products, especially technical components, we needed to resort to neutral lighting in order to make all features of the product easily recognizable. If even in product photography neutral lighting can be necessary, it is IMHO even more appropriate for encyclopedic illustrations. --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pierre André ^(talk) 10:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral saw the debate about lighting and I actually tend to agree with Colin and Podzemnik. The lighting is barely OK and maybe too even. The textures should be emphasized better. Don't be afraid to add light sources ;) - Benh (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that the light is a bit bland, but I still find it a very impressive photo. The neutral lighting is appropriate for an encylopedia (per Aristeas). Cmao20 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Anthozoa

File:Great Barrier Reef ESA378130.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 09:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info A section of the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Queensland, Australia. You might need to wait a bit for the image to fully load at full size. created by European Space Agency - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dedicated to one the greatest natural natural wonders of world and one that might disappear in the near future. -- StellarHalo (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the lack of vote? Are you guys having trouble viewing this image at full size? StellarHalo (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's more likely that people just don't have a strong opinion regarding this nomination, in either direction, to vote. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be surprising if that were the case. Many people check this page frequently and this is not a type of image I would expect such lack of reaction. StellarHalo (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't decided what I think of the composition. It wouldn't be surprising if many people had looked but had yet to decide whether or how to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Really like the photo if I consider it as some abstract artwork; but then the left and right crops seem a bit random, therefore I have hesitated (and use ‘weak’ support). --Aristeas (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Aristeas, who expresses it well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even as abstract art, I don't find it a compelling image. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admittedly not that compelling with those crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:One Of The Dragons - Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg, not featured , not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2021 at 19:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Sumit Surai - uploaded by Sumit Surai - nominated by Sumit Surai -- Sumit Surai (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sumit Surai (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, IMO, and to specify, that isn't going to be solved by changing anything in post-production, but rather, for FP, I think this motif has to be photographed when there's some light directly hitting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek, nice motif but the light conditions were not favourable. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with both of you, for me the slightly threatening cloudscape behind the dragon adds to the WOW. --Kritzolina (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced, too dark, unappealing grey sky, for a more threatening feeling I'd go for this angle. Poco a poco (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --StellarHalo (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unexceptional. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portret z zona.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Duos_(depictions_of_two_people)
Info created by Stanisław Wyspiański - uploaded by Shalom Alechem/Google Arts - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pastel. I wouldn't know if the colors were off, but I do know what a pastel's surface looks like (my father did hundreds of them), so I can recognize a good photo of one in that respect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 22:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Duos_(depictions_of_two_people)

File:Rakhsh Kills a Lion while Rustam Sleeps.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 19:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Others
Info uploaded and nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cbrescia (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Панорама Інтегралу.jpg, featured , featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2021 at 08:00:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info Buzk's Gard National Nature Park, Ukraine. Created and uploaded by Vian - nominated by DimasSolo -- DimasSolo (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DimasSolo (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems overprocessed, with the sky too dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Hmm, stunning photo but the processing has gone a bit overboard I think, it looks too saturated and contrasty. Cmao20 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe the filter on the sky went a bit overboard and the downsampling could be better, but the rest is top notch. - Benh (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info DimasSolo has less than 50 edits and is not 10 days old btw. But I don't know the procedure in such case. - Benh (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK apparently now such users can nominate and vote on their own nom. Sorry for disrupting! - Benh (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Benh StellarHalo (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much contrast in the sky, IMO, so I'm opposing because I don't want this to pass this way. I'd like the contrast to be dialed down, and then I'd be likely to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard to know about the sky. Perhaps a polariser was used and made the sky too dark there. The right hand side is a bit soft, perhaps partly because of glare from the sun. The scene is very 3D and interesting. -- Colin (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB seems unusually pinkish, even allowing for the time of day and filtration through clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Loss of pigmentation in Cepaea nemoralis var. libellula lutescens fasciata 10345, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 07:57:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Normal coloration of the bands and the aperture (Cepaea nemoralis var. libellula lutescens fasciata 10345)
Normal coloration of the bands and loss of coloration of the aperture (Cepaea nemoralis var. libellula lutescens albilabris fasciata 10345)
Loss of coloration of the bands and loss of coloration of the aperture (Cepaea nemoralis var. libellula lutescens albilabris hyalozonata 10345)

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Helicidae
Info Normally the banded forms of Cepaea nemoralis (var. fasciata), the Grove snail, have brown bands and a brown aperture; in very rare cases, the aperture is barely or not colored (var. albilabris). Shells in which, in addition to the uncolored aperture, the bands are recognizable but not colored (var. hyalozonata), are even rarer. Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pierre André ^(talk) 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The idea is good and valid for a set but IMHO the one in the middle is too close to the one on the left and so the gap to the one on the right is rather big. Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Please take a ruler and check the distances. They are exactly equal to the right and and the left shell. But as the middle shell has an assymetric shape, one can get the impression of unequal distances. --Llez (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I mean the loss of pigmentation. I'm not talking about the distance. Poco a poco (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pomelo fruit, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 06:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Pomelo fruit with segments
Pomelo fruit flesh

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfecto. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again very appetizing. --Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent set. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done --Wilfredor (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The main fruit photo could I think do with being less evenly lit. You can tell it is round because of the two highlight spots, the rightmost of which brings out some texture, but I think the form (round fruit) and texture (pimples) could have been much clearer with some experimentation of light. The texture on the two segments is fine, if a little bright. I'd probably not oppose given the degree of support so far, but for the second photo, which is simply too bright and lacking detail as a result. It also doesn't work as a "set" for me because of the totally different background/surfaces. I'm don't think the harsh contrast between the over-brightly lit flesh and a black background and a strange textured black surface is a good combination. If just the first photo was nominated, I'd go neutral, especially since it provides the outside and inside aspects all in one image. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hate pomelos, but these photos almost make me want to eat one! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aporia crataegi in Morzine (1).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 07:46:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Pieridae_(Whites_and_Sulphurs)
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not close to QI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but, sorry, too much of the wings are out of focus for me to support. Cmao20 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egretta garzetta - Sète - January 2021.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2021 at 18:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Egretta
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an easy bird to photograph closer and with better camera settings. Little definition and noisy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"easy bird to photograph closer": I disagree, where I live it is not easy to go close to those birds, this photo was taken in his natural habitat and when you install material they go away, so this one is taken without tripod. Furthermore if is "so easy" to photograph I wonder why this is the bigger sized image (and from far) within our FPs of the same genus. And I wonder too why there is not one of your images there, but that is likely too easy for you. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I correct: there is one where the bird is bigger, but I still disagree that it's easy to get close. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steven Sun (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe could be sharper, but still FP. Cmao20 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Although "easy bird to photograph closer" is very false: it is rare that the distance at which you can approach the bird depicted here is less than the double that you can approach this bird from the same natural area, but of course you can know this kind of thing only if you have really tried. Furthemore the other good pictures of this bird, such as this one, were taken in parks at the middle of big cities, I have never been in this kind of place but I guess that the place being limited the birds tend to move away much less. Nevertheless that will not exempt me from trying to do better in terms of composition and quality. Thanks for the supports, I will be back. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 12.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 07:42:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the dark line in the upper left in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have FP File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 21.jpg and failed FP File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 22.jpg. I'm not clear what this one, taken an hour later, a few years ago, is adding that makes it worth nominating too. The two tourists are unfortunate rather than adding something, and the road isn't so quaint here. As with the others, it is a bit over-processed, but lacks the warm light in the other two. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but, per Colin, not as good as the existing FP. Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacques-Cartier Provincial Park, Québec.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 19:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info Image shows the late afternoon just before sunset. The sun is nearly gone, so the left side of the valley is already in shadow, but the other side is still in the yellow, bright sunlight. Excellent athmosphere in autumn. Image created, uploaded and nominated by Marc-Lautenbacher -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Left part is too dark and in the right part the light is not beautiful. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Michiel. Beautiful motif and a good photo; just not special enough for FP. But I would encourage you to continue to take photos of this motif if you have the opportunity, because an FP is certainly possible under the right conditions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, Marc-Lautenbacher, can you please fix the format of your nomination? This would presumably be Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada, but check the categories under COM:FP, and make sure you have a blue link that goes to the right place when you're done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment Ikan Kekek, I've fixed a blue link that goes to the right place now. -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI for sure, but not exceptional enough to be FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:OSE 220 023 Aggeie.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2021 at 06:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- yes, there is noise. But it doesn't bother me at all. Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support love the mood, but I wish there was a bit more lead room for the train to move into. A bit looser crop at the bottom at the expense of some of the upper sky might do. --El Grafo (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The noise is mild and overall, the picture, while not as big as many of Kabelleger's, is awesome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast of warm/cold colours, movement/frost etc. --Aristeas (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 12:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oops, Greece in snow ;) --A.Savin 12:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light, and per Aristeas -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steven Sun (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality in spite of the ISO level Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how there's just a bit of colour left from the sunset. Somehow it's nicer than full sunset lighting. Cmao20 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Punta de flecha del neolítico, frontera de Níger y Mali, 2021-01-15, DD 244-293 FS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2021 at 12:46:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Others
Info Focus stacked image (composed of 50 frames) of a well elaborated arrowhead from the Neolithic, final division of the Stone Age and therefore between 6,5 and 4 thousand years old. The 4.7 centimetres (1.9 in)-long arrowhead is made of flint and was found in the border between Niger and Mali. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive for the size of the object, but since you give us such generous resolution, would it be worth trying to sharpen the photo a bit more? This arrowhead shows really good workmanship. Don't you meant it's made out of flint? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied some more sharpening Ikan Kekek, wouldn't go further than that. I didn't understand your second question, is the workmanship too good for flint? --Poco a poco (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say it's made out of "filt". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very slight improvement that's visible to me only at full size. I'm not sure. This definitely should be a QI, though, and it would probably be a good VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan Kekek you see FP potential here? I can redo it and hopefully get more sharpness. And, yes, sorry, I meant flint, I've corrected it. Poco a poco (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a beautiful arrowhead, so yes, I see FP potential with increased sharpness and other changes that would make it comparable to what you did with the fossil. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, Ikan Kekek, ...and this was what I tried in the evening. Unfortunately it didn't work so good as I expected. Will try it somewhen soon with a new version from scratch, for now I take it back. I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

File:Orthoceras, Erfoud, Marruecos, 2021-01-14, DD 001-040 FS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2021 at 12:45:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Phylum_:_Mollusca
Info Focus stacked image (composed of 40 frames) of a Orthoceras sp. found in Erfoud, region of Tafilalt, Morocco. The 5.3 centimetres (2.1 in)-long horn belongs to an extinct genus of nautiloid cephalopods that lived in the Silurian period and is approx. 420 million years old. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems impressive to me, considering the size of the fossil. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added two notes. Out of focus area is quite distracting. --Ivar (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some improvements in those areas once more. Please, bear in mind the size of the file... Poco a poco (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not much better and by cloning out oof area is imho not a good thing to do (that means You are changing original texture of this specimen). --Ivar (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. Please revert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem, I have reverted. I don't know how far we are going here, As I undertand that there is FP potential here, I'd rather redo it from scratch and upload today an alternative version Poco a poco (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Comment Ok, here comes a new version, halo and blurred areas of the horn shouldn't be an issue anymore. @Iifar and Ikan Kekek: what do you think? Poco a poco (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I surely like it :) Poco a poco (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is no question about it now. Please fix minor cloning marks on top (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar Done, thanks Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support So much better! This is an entirely new picture, isn't it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: Yes, as said, I spent the afternoon to develop it from scratch. Looks like it was worith it :) Poco a poco (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lighting is much better in this one, but this is a totally different photo taken 10 days later. The rules state that an alt is only for different processing or crops of the original photo. Please withdraw, renominate. Poco, FP is for images that you truly believe are among the finest among the millions on Commons, rather than just "Here's what I photographed today. Ok that was a bit crap. What about this then. Or this..." -- Colin (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can be really offensive, I've invested a lot of time in taking pictures like these ones and I don't think either that you'll find items like these below each stone in the street. Resetting the nom is a waste of time and resources, but whatever I withdraw my nomination the first candidate and will nom the second one right away. Poco a poco (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, you've been here long enough that it is simply rude for you to keep making careless noms like this, with blurry patches and bad lighting. And the rules for alts have been well discussed and longstanding. Half of all your recent fossil/stone nominations have failed with their original nom. That's not careful nominating and that's insulting to folk who spend time reviewing. -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should understand Colin that also a veteran here can become suddenly a rookie when it comes to new areas of photography. The series of FS I do now is in terms of equipment, lighting and new field, so it should be understandable that there is room for improvement. At the beginning a picture looked really good to me and that's why I proposed it to FP, after getting some feedback, looking for other examples or reading a bit about the topic you realized how improve it, and you do it again and again. The current FP candidates are very time-consuming. I haven't probably invested so much time to create a FP like I do now. It's not a "ok, let's have a try, oh crap, not good, I do it again"... Poco a poco (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the problem right here. You have spent a lot of time on the photos and feel that you should be rewarded a star for your effort. But were are here to nominate and judge photos that are among the finest on Commons, not photographers. This can't just become a boys club that mutually supports the enthusiasm of regulars, nor a kindergarten where you get praise simply for making an effort. The nomination here had elementary lighting and focus stacking errors. I wish Commons had an active and lively forum where those beginning a new thing could get feedback and improve, but it doesn't really. Do you think someone learning to paint would nominate their efforts to be hung in the national gallery? The try, try, try again approach is fine in life, but not what FP is for. -- Colin (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You take all this too seriously, Colin. Indeed I believe rather that you express here rather your opinion and not the community's. Nobody is here because she/he must, but rather because they like it and don't mind spending time here. To me it isn't a big deal to give feedback and in fact when we have newcomers in QI I dedicate more time to guide. It's very rewarding for me to see how they improve and become good photographers. And not only the benefit from that but also the project... Poco a poco (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "community" says "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor"". Half your recent noms failed. For someone who has perhaps nominated a thousand images, I'd say you were out of step with community consensus by the very evidence of your nominations. And wrt the alt rules, those are not my opinions, yet still you grumble and complain about me asking you to follow the same rules as everyone else. I'm unwatching now. -- Colin (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, here you find all my unsuccessful FP noms and here the successful ones. To me it looks like 69% of success rate, and not 50%. Poco a poco (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

File:Trenčín 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 16:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info Sculpture of Pietà overlooking Piarist Church and surrounds of Trenčín - created by Scotch Mist - uploaded by Scotch Mist - nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM1 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM1 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This composition doesn't work for me, crop too tight at the right side, and the light is not very good -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 --Peulle (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, per Basile. Hard to tell whether the church or the statue is meant to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Daniel Case: While the 'focus' of the camera is on the sculpture the composition intentionally begs the question you ask - however I accept that 'symbolism' is not necessarily a factor in FP and that even where the contrast of Mary's 'child' dying in his Mother's arms with the ideals of the Piarist Church which arose to look after and educate children, especially the poor and disadvantaged, is understood, it is not necessarily well represented in this image (although it does seem to have provoked some questions, albeit more technical than philosophical!:) --SM1 (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC) PS. In spite of our many recent technological advances 'child poverty' appears to be on the rise across Europe and around the world! --SM1 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --SM1 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebing Kunststoffmatten-20160429-RM-160135.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 07:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice abstract artwork, harmonic colours. --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most difficult thing here was to determine the image detail. Thanks fort the nom.--Ermell (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is easy to take a photo of a monument or of great natural beauties, but the most valuable are those that we find in the extraordinary in the ordinary. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very Cart-esque image ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Wilfredor. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DAN-58-Bank von Danzig-10 Gulden (1930).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 18:01:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Money
Info created by Bank of Danzig, Free City of Danzig - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not full set? It's one of those cases where each banknote is unique and interesting --Andrei (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, please nominate as a set. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dunno, why a full set and not individual nominations? This is in better shape than the rupiah note, and it's also obviously defunct (there is no longer a city of Danzig; it's Gdansk now). There are a few things that could be improved in a digital restoration, but I'll support this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew J.Kurbiko @King of Hearts how do I nominate a full set? Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Featured picture candidates#Adding a new nomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diamond (side view).png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 20:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and minerals
Info Cathodoluminescence image of a diamond. SEM TESCAN MIRA3. Field of view = 3,45 mm / Сreated by Pavel.Somov - uploaded by Pavel.Somov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful. What is the texture we're seeing below the diamond? The background object, I guess, but because it's notably wavy and therefore calls attention to itself, I think it should be identified. (Also, very minor point, but wouldn't the relevant category be diamonds, rather than gemstones?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek unfortunately Pavel.Somov will not answer you, the participant appears in Wikimedia projects only at the time of the contest Science Photo Competition. JukoFF (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe we should reconsider these nominations at that time, when the information I'm asking for could be added? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We judge the quality of an illustration, not the description of that illustration, don't we? JukoFF (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Educational value is a factor, right? We've certainly treated it as such. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The texture below the diamond is almost definitely carbon tape. It is common practice to put specimens on carbon tape for scanning electron microscopy. The carbon tape allows charges to drain to ground while the specimen is under the electron beam. 2406:3003:2077:ABF:C454:5060:EB03:8BEF 14:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now here is a remarkable image photographed with interesting light. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, can't see sides of the diamond.Seven Pandas (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven Pandas, it wouldn't be the first time I demonstrate my ignorance on these pages, but my understanding is that we are seeing the diamond bombarded by electrons in a scanning electron microscope and itself glowing these colours (cathodoluminescence). Therefore, the lighting here is literally the subject and if you don't like how diamonds cathodoluminescence, you'll have to have a word with God about it :-). -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this and consider it an FP, but I sure as hell hope my questions are answered when this user returns, because it's a problem to have scientific images that aren't sufficiently explained. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Ikan's reservations. I wish it were sharper, but I take into account Colin's explanation above. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and minerals

File:Fastnachtsumzug, Rottweil, Süddeutschland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 19:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info At the famous carnival at Rottweil (Rottweiler Fasnet), people still use traditional costumes of 19th century. Since 1903, a special social club (Narrenzunft Rottweil) organises every year the great parade in the old town. Image created, uploaded and nominated by Marc-Lautenbacher -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the subject is interesting and quality good, but the composition doesn't quite work for me. I find that my eyes don't naturally settle anywhere. Landing on neutral, but could possibly be convinced. Regardless, I'm glad to see an image of such an event passing FPC (it's rare). :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition seems a bit random to me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IND-17-Republik Indonesia-1 Rupiah (1945).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 18:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Money
Info created by Republic of Indonesia - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this design no longer used? I'm also unsure whether we shouldn't require a digital restoration for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek the design is from 1945,so yes it's no longer used. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. I imagine some bills' designs haven't changed since 1945. I still would prefer a digital restoration, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a state-issued document, and any digital manipulation would be violating normal archival customs. The banknote is unique, with its own serial number, and i believe that any restoration in such a case should be only done to the original document. --Andrei (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So different standards from a print that's not money. If so, I'll Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support interesting clouds --Andrei (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaub and Burg Gutenfels, Southwest view 20141002 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 19:53:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Germany
Info A view of the town of Kaub in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, together with Gutenfels Castle. I like the composition, with the castle satisfyingly placed according to the rule of thirds, and the golden light is really subtle and lovely. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have loved more river if possible, but I feel like this is good and interesting enough to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 10:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pierre André ^(talk) 10:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the nomination, Cmao20! --DXR (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo and Qi. But rather dull light. Can't see anything outstanding here. --Milseburg (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Milseburg. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quai de la République - November 2020.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 15:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood and lighting and the dark clouds help in this context, as they contrast with the electric lights. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmk121 jako Ciut Szalony Artur¿¡ (talk). 12:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't see what's particularly special about this picture. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Джинсовая ткань (изнаночная сторона).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2021 at 21:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Denim (underside) under the microscope / Сreated by Alexander Klepnev - uploaded by Alexander Klepnev - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fascinating and would be a great VIC nominee, regardless of the outcome of this nomination. Can we have the magnification, please, Mr. Klepnev? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek unfortunately Klepnev will not answer you, the participant appears in Wikimedia projects only at the time of the contest Science Photo Competition. JukoFF (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps someone knows how to contact him. Magnification is scientifically quite important, and also important for use in an encyclopedia if Wikipedians would want to use it, wouldn't you say? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what an increase can do, I don't have the baggage of knowledge in materials science, but ..... Is it not obvious to you what is shown in the photo? :) JukoFF (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JukoFF, Ikan is not asking you to magnify or enlarge the photo, he wants to know what the magnification ratio is. You misunderstood. I guess it is about x50(?) :-) --Cart (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're confident it's around 50x, give or take, we can add that information to the file description and hope Mr. Klepnev edits it to 49x or whatever later this year. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a guesstimation. You start seeing the twisted ribbon shape of cotton fibers at around x50 so this could be even higher. --Cart (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an expert in fibres under a microscope, but this looks like artificial fibre, and two separate threads woven together, rather than a dyed cotton thread. It may be "denim coloured" fabric, but it isn't cotton denim. -- Colin (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen cotton denim under the microscope before? :) JukoFF (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks just like cotton fiber. [2] Even the dye looks right. Indigo will stay on the surface of natural fibers. That is why you can stonewash a pair of jeans to rub away the dye. Most artificial fibers have the color absorbed into the very fiber. I have done a lot of dyeing in my days, especially indigo, and this looks ok to me. Oh, and btw, denim can be thread dyed or fabric dyed. Some denims are woven from indigo dyed and white thread for a different look. The jeans I'm wearing right now are woven just like in the photo. --Cart (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, I removed your second link as my antivirus blocked it as a site containing malware (possibly hijacked). Ok, so the cotton fibre can be more regular than I expected, but I'm still confused (a) that it appears see-through and (b) that it is in fact in colour given that when I google "cotton fiber microscope" I get scanning electron microscope images of similar thread, which of course have no colour. Btw, as this note and this note, a description like "50x" only makes sense for images like this if you specify the size of the image you are looking at (e.g. 8"x10" print or longest side 25mm). Why can't I find similar pictures to this? -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, cotton fibers are actually tranclusent, almost transparent, as are most fibers when you get down on a microscopic level. Most photographers take advantage of this and shoot cotton fiber in polarizing light, just like you have done with clear plastic objects. Google "cotton fiber microscope polarizing", or even alamy and you get a nice selection of photos.

When identifying fibers, you can't go by if they are transparent or opaque to determine if they are natural or manmade. General rule of thumb: If they have a complex structure, are twisted or have scales, they are grown (by animals or plants). If they are long smooth and look like some sort of pasta, they are extruded. Manmade fibers are extruded in some shape and so are silk and spiderweb (silkworms and spider don't "grow" their thread, they extrude it). This page sums it up rather well. --Cart (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the misgivings expressed above. I hope they're dealt with before this is run as POTD. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support has good EV for articles related to denim and cotton fiber. Buidhe (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Hemimorphite - Mapimi, Durango, Mexico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 06:58:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Beautiful crystals, but what's the background? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek it's just an empty background. If the light fades away, farther part of the background gets darker. --Ivar (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I haven't decided what I think of the feeling of the rock just floating there. I won't oppose but might not vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You know what? Although I can't tell what the background is, the details on the subject and the clarity of clear/white crystals deserve a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the rock standing on those 3 tips or kind of floating? The top part is pretty bright there it is hard to distinguish the different cristals and the border of the top left area doesn't look so realistic (right side for example looks good). Poco a poco (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco: the mineral is standing by itself and true, upper left part is quite bright (because of the light reflection), but that's relatively small compared to whole compo. --Ivar (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gradient on the background is OK for me. Good focus stack of a beautiful object. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crystal is OK, but there is something wrong with the colour transitions of the bottom --Llez (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Llez: nothing's wrong with the colour transition. The light is coming from below, through the table and forming this color with the reflection of mineral. --Ivar (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hand arteries.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 00:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the gallery here>]]
Info created by A loose necktie - uploaded by A loose necktie - nominated by A loose necktie -- A loose necktie (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A loose necktie (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but too easy to do and simple Wilfredor (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed. Kaldari (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, probably about as good as it could be. I think there should be a category for diagrams. Also, this needs an FP category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too simple, imo. To vote for something like this, I'd expect to see something along the lines of what you find in medical textbooks. --Peulle (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Depending on how I look at it, it is either too simple (for a scientifically accurate representation, per Peulle) or too complicated (for a simplified "infographic" style image). --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredor. Daniel Case (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:01-Satz des Pythagoras-W.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 09:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info created by Petrus3743 - uploaded by Petrus3743 - nominated by Petrus3743 -- Petrus3743 (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petrus3743 (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose the intention of the animation is to show that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 by adding up the volumes of the squares, but why is there still some volume left of the second largest square after the largest square has completely "faded"? That would imply that a^2 + b^2 > c^2. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your hint. But it's so right. It was designed that way on purpose, because you know for sure that liquids evaporate ... In a few years it will be exact! Greetings --Petrus3743 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose animation brings nothing. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Percival Kestreltail, the animation doesn't seem to show exactly what it should. I also think we should not really be promoting GIFs in 2021, they are not the most flexible or useful file format for animations. Cmao20 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Percival Kestreltail and Benh. The Gallery has much better animations. --Tagooty (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi —Percival Kestreltail and Cmao20, to clear up the misunderstanding, there is no volume left in the second largest square. The number of pixels that are still clearly visible in the triangle all fit exactly into the large square ... see GeoGebra. I suggested the picture because a similar animation has already been rated well. --Petrus3743 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus3743, thanks for your reply. I stand corrected, but I'm afraid I still don't think this animation is FP. Note that the other animation you link to was promoted a long time ago, in 2007. Back then, GIFs might have been seen as a useful file format, but 14 years on they are no longer really the gold standard. Cmao20 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as suggested above there has been a general consensus over the past few years that .GIFs are not the way we should be delivering animated images for a variety of reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWell, I'm a autodidact, which means I like to learn. What is the good alternative to GIFs, by which I mean how can the mathematical topic I have shown be presented better? By the way, where can I see the examples of good animations, on Commons:Featured pictures/Animated there are only GIFs apart from the videos.--Petrus3743 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can read this (very long) discussion. Personally I'm not really flabbergasted by this design, however I totally disagree with those saying GIF is not an appropriate format for animations. On the contrary, GIFs are just perfect for this kind of "show". Many GIFs were promoted FP in the past, and a few ones even reached the rare finalists at the POTY competition. GIFs are displayed on a computer like any other image, except the content moves, and that's great. No need to click on any button to start / stop / pause. So simple. Very easy also to use it for any web page, just resize it as you wish, like a JPG. Perhaps not the best candidature in this case, however definitely a useful media, and I strongly encourage you to continue to create those kind of valuable animations in this format -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basile Morin, thank you for your words! This animation (it is more complicated than it looks) was made to illustrate the principle of an exhibit in Science-Center Phaeno in Wolfsburg. Please see Satz des Pythagoras. Since I design in GeoGebra, I can only incorporate my images (two-dimensional or three-dimensional) as GIF in Wikipedia. In contrast to Commons, these (my) animations and images are not unpopular in Wikipedia! This can even be used to achieve the Excellent award for an article, for example, Würfelverdoppelung. Well, I won't propose any pictures as a candidate in FPC in the future! Best regards--Petrus3743 (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus3743, FPC is great, but the "wow" factor is subjective. And now it's extremely rare to see GIFs nominated. You can try Commons:Featured media candidates or Commons:Quality images candidates instead. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drohobych - church.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 12:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Ukraine
Info created by Elena Kurylo - uploaded by Elena Kurylo - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad bottom crop, perspective is not well done, even not a QI --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. Also not sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors look good but the cropping,perspective are spoiling it.Will have to sadly oppose. --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although I do think people have been maybe a little harsh on this, it's a beautifully colourful photo and the image quality is good. But the uncorrected perspective distortion is not really good enough for FP, and nor is the slightly arbitrary bottom crop. It's beautiful, and I actually like it quite a lot, but technically some way below par IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a photo of St. George's Church. It is one of the oldest timber churches in Ukraine, which is built in the 15th century. There are not many timber churches like this in Ukraine, which has been preserved in such a good state, as it is built of wood. I think that it is important to capture how it looks like now on photo for future generations to be able to see this beautiful sight. This church is a part of World Heritage. Church is absent in the gallery of selected photos, but in my opinion should be added there. Photo of the church satisfy technical requirements. I would like to please ask you to consider importance of supporting this prominent art of timber architecture with rich history and to vote for it. Thanks. --Elena Kurylo (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those seem like better arguments for COM:VIC (where a perspective correction would probably be required) and COM:QIC (where a majority of voters would disagree with your technical appraisal). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capitol at dusk (87785p)2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 03:33:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info The United States Capitol (east side) shortly after sunset. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry I find the Blue hour mood not quite well captured (some highlights clearly overexposed), the image is tilted (see horizontals), and scaffolds at the left are not nice either (I would be willing to excuse this, if the other issues were not there). --A.Savin 15:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights, scaffoldings and above all I don't think a cylindrical like projection fits the subject well here. - Benh (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per A.Savin and Benh. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Responding to the above: I did see that there's a little distortion. I tried to fix it the best I could and nominated it regardless because it doesn't seem enough to be a deal-breaker and the level of detail and drama of the dusk sky make it special. Perhaps the building is less ominous than it was a year ago :) but I like it. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown lights are fine, but not blown facades. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent IMO, the distortion doesn't bother me and the detail and atmosphere are very good. Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others: projection, lighting. Compare File:Reichstagsgebäude mit Weihnachtsbaum bei Nacht, Berlin, 151223, ako.jpg which also got some opposes, but is better than this. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ok let's go ahead and withdraw this. I don't think the big issues here are fixable. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Captain's Pit 20210123.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2021 at 23:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United Kingdom
Info created by Rodhullandemu - uploaded by Rodhullandemu - nominated by Rodhullandemu -- Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've suggested a different crop. See what you think of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can see why you might want to lose some of the path in the bottom right, but that puts the church off-centre even though it's not meant to be the subject. Anyone else have a view? Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm even more trying to avoid the partial tree at the upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I get that. Cropped accordingly. Rodhullandemu Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tree on the right is very unsharp... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The DOF is intentionally set to be on the water. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is an odd title, as the pit and pond in it is better captured in File:Captain's Pit, Wallasey.jpg. The subject here would seem to be All Saints Church and its reflection in water. I've added the Commons FP gallery for you. I don't think this is at FP level of buildings + reflection. The building is a bit too plain, the light dull, the image soft and there is some horizontal distortion. -- Colin (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination It was recomended for nomination from QI to FP by someone else. As to the plain building, unfortunately World War II means it lacks its intended spire, and I don't carry a spare around with me. The lighting is what we get in January in the north of England. Never mind. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cerkev Marijinega rojstva, Trška Gora 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 20:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Slovenia
Info One of the winning photos from Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Slovenia. A photo that breaks the rules in terms of composition to really good effect. I love the light and colours. created by Darkoj82 - uploaded by Darkoj82 - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. A category for night pictures should be added. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: done, thanks for your support. Cmao20 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Really beautiful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support lovely night photo. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But what do we think that streak is to the right of the church? Seems like an accidentally sharpened light or something? Perhaps best cloned out? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fairy-story-like. --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't usually like night pictures (daylight ones have higher EV) but this one works, imo. Buidhe (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vitryak z khutoru Kudryavyy 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 21:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Ukraine
Info created by Hrybiuk - uploaded by Hrybiuk - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very dramatic, but is that degree of blackness on the upper right and the extreme upper left corner excessive? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- love it Seven Pandas (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very dramatic use of black and white. I get Ikan Kekek's point, looks like there might be a bit of vignetting going on, but still I think it deserves the star. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed in my opinion, too dark and the upper right corner looks weird -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Relly nice and dramatic, but a bit brighter overall would be even better, and while I appreciate some vignetting, the top-right corner is too dark. --Aristeas (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin --Fischer.H (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice try, but it just doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it would be better if it were a little lighter, not quite as processed, etc. but it was the first image that really grabbed my attention in the FPC list. Looks like the establishing shot from some neowestern. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winter in der Südlichen Hochrhön.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 21:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Winter on the Himmeldunkberg. View over the Southern High Rhön. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw this on QIC and was wondering how long it would be till it showed up here. Glad it did. Cmao20 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --Aristeas (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Da wird man doch gerne wach :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reiterstellwerk IMG 2896.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 15:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport # Others>
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm better with wires than most reviewers here and on QIC, but this composition doesn't really work for me, and I also question whether the quality is good enough for FP. It's interesting, though, the light is nice, and I salute you for an out-of-the-box nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light and composition but IMO the quality is too poor for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset Park waterfront (85311p).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 22:54:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Industry#United_States
Info Buildings along the water in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Formerly an active waterfront, it went through a long decline since the mid-20th century before some recent development. Certainly a not very often photographed part of New York City. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC) But please add coordinates[reply]
Support Very well composed with the light and clouds. Where did you shoot this from? Also a valuable photo that merits a VIC nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It's taken from the pier at Bush Terminal Park (just added coords). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, quality and light. Cmao20 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors immediately caught my eye on the candidate list! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The harsh reality of austere decaying buildings 'complemented' by a harsh sky overhead! --SM1 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light with featured clouds -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, I'm late :) I guess there are some interesting spots over there for building interior photography (in the case access is possible). Poco a poco (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support If it's possible to capture Brooklyn in one image, you did it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good shot. I see some mistakes, but very minor (on 100%), when trying to guess the Matrix used. Horizontal could go but vertical is a problem. So what was the matrix here? --Mile (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Гранітно-степове Побужжя(3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 12:01:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created by Viktoriia Rogovenko - uploaded by Viktoriia Rogovenko - nominated by Luda.slominska -- Luda.slominska (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luda.slominska (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. --A.Savin 14:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support not very sharp but neither really unsharp IMO, great compo/subject/light/wow factor, + reasonable size. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin. Way too unsharp for me. --StellarHalo (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very beautiful although the colours look a bit artificial to me. The resolution/quality is so-so, which leads me to be on the fence. Cmao20 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pavlo1 (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The water vapor is responsible for the blur here. If you sharpen the image here, it looks like noise. No one could create a sharp image under the same conditions. Good mood and interesting landscape. FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But even the nearest foreground isn't sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Exactly per Cmao20. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao20, but IMHO Ermell is right, water vapor may explain at least some of the unsharpness. --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin -- Karelj (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan's response to Ermell. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baltic blooms ESA21514635.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 14:29:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info Green algal blooms in the Baltic Sea around Gotland, Sweden. created by European Space Agency - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much more wow than the other satellite photo nomination. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Couldn't resist this. Simply stunning! Magnificent photo of my old home. --Cart (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool --JukoFF (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant composition, sort of abstract photograph, very large resolution, and also per Percival Kestreltail. Just a shame it's not a perfect square, but that's a detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! This is beautiful. Do you know what the straight lines in or over the water are? They seem a little long for the wakes of ships or airplanes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of them (down by the south tip of the main island) is the shadow of a contrail. The contrail is also in the photo. The rest are made by boats. You can see that they end in white dots=boats. These algae are very sluggish and move rather slowly with the currents. The swirly patterns take several hours to form, often a day or so. So when a boat makes a swat through the algae, it takes a while for it to close. From the shore, this algae looks like someone took crushed moss and scattered in the sea. During the bloom, the local radio station/website has a daily report about what bays and beaches are algae-infested and not. It changes on a daily basis depending on wind and currents. --Cart (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Amazing at thumbnail and even more amazing at full size.Cmao20 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Eingangsportal -- 2021 -- 4504-10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 18:58:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Doors
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject isn't typically something that catches my eye, but I find the light and color really very pleasing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and (complementary) colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive light illumination --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent colours. Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the attention paid to all possible categorizations (although I did find one to add). Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I learned a lot from you. Thank you very much! :-) (In this case, sorry, the category you found was already set - as one of the subcategories.) In my opinion, a good categorization makes sense, even if some categories are rather questionable. And I am not familiar with some of the detailed categories. --XRay 💬 05:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Stunning. --Camelia (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural_elements#Doors

File:Boma and Kesna - Puri Lukisan Museum (16438173643).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2021 at 11:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Hinduism
Info created by Jorge Láscar - uploaded by Thesupermat2 - nominated by Pinerineks -- ~~
Support -- Pinerineks (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That might be the best modern Balinese painting I've ever seen, albeit in reproduction, but can we please have the name of the artist, dimensions and media for the artwork, and if at all possible, the year of composition? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: will support if the above is sorted out. This may very well be still under copyright protection in Indonesia. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above discussions. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Bauerschaft Börnste -- 2021 -- 4406 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2021 at 11:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 11:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photograph was taken at dawn. So it was taken with an exposure time of 25 seconds. --XRay 💬 11:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 11:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the sphere in this photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO really nice use of black and white. Cmao20 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose imho crop is still not very pleasant. --Ivar (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional, in this era of pervasive colour. --Tagooty (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image gives me many feelings --Wilfredor (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Knowing it was a nighttime image shot with a long exposure makes this slightly surreal. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm not convinced by the crop, either, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this crop looks fairly good. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like this one much better. --El Grafo (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#North Rhine-Westphalia

File:Egret catching prey - Reflection on water.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2021 at 13:55:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately out of focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know which parts are out of focus -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splash and neck -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile. Although it's an action shot, it should still be sharper than this for FP. Might be a good VIC nom, though, depending on its competition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sadly per above, very dramatic photo but not sharp enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(R)egretful(?) oppose per above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Wilfredor (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kosice 46.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2021 at 16:14:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info Top of sculptured column with statue of the Virgin Mary in Košice - created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM1 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM1 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High quality, but not an impressive photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I kind of agree with Michiel. Perfectly good, but the sky and clouds aren't helping make it a great composition to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek: Thank you for your detailed comment - as I have only nominated one previous FP am uncertain of what is customary here but presume if I thought it worthwhile to crop the image, or 'enhance' it in any other way, then I would have to re-nominate it at a later date rather than simply upload a new version of the same image (as I would do for QI)? --SM1 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are free to alter the image and then ping everyone who's already voted. My feeling, though, is that you need more interesting clouds, probably no shadow, and probably more of the lower parts of the column, but I haven't seen the column in person. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek: Fully understood and thank you for your informative comment - this being the case is it general practice here to withdraw an image at this stage or to wait until further 'voting' is completed? --SM1 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's totally up to you. I think it wouldn't be out of line to wait a couple more days and see if you get some supporting votes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) (@Ikan Kekek: Thank you for your further advice which I have followed and also cropped the image in the meantime --SM1 (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

~~Weak support~~ Support One of the most interesting “Mariensäulen” (columns with statues of Saint Mary), and the perspective is nice. However, as noted before, the sky could be more interesting, and the contrast is high, making the shadows almost black. Maybe the overall impression could be improved by some careful changes in the colour balance – the stone appears rather cold; but at 10 a.m. in July the light is cold or “bluish”, and often it is hard to get satisfying colours in post-processing from photos taken at that time. Therefore it would be great if you could repeat this photo at another time in the year and of the day with softer light and warmer colours. No offence, --Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me. I think some more interesting clouds would have made it better, but this is fine for FP in my book. Cmao20 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The sky and cloud are a bit dull but everything else is great --StellarHalo (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light. And for this reason, not an outstanding image in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Revised image ulpoaded with white balance slightly adjusted and shadows lifted with assistance of Aristeas - @Ikan Kekek: @Basile Morin: . --SM1 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The new version is much better in my opinion. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, much better. I've crossed out my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed much better, therefore I have changed my vote above from “weak” to “support”. --Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Is this result of 'not featured' correct? --SM1 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's correct, just a housekeeping move. Someone has to change "unreviewed" to "reviewed" and put their sig in at the end in order for the bot to dispose of the nomination, whether it's featured or not featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Populus balsamifera- Lynde Shores.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2021 at 20:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Salicaceae
Info: balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) buds. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice motif but I think it could be a bit sharper and also I'd like to see a bit more of the stem, it looks a bit tight on the left. Cmao20 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose As per Cmao20 on 'sharpness'. --SM1 (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Frankly in addition to being unsharp the upper portion is a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Self-portrait by Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowiczowa, 1887.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2021 at 13:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings
Info created by Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowiczowa - uploaded by Wames - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction of a striking self-portrait with historical importance. --Aristeas (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas --Granada (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely painting. Cmao20 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Wilfredor (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Мальовничий ранок на Дністрі.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2021 at 14:10:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info Spring morning at the Dniester river, Western Ukraine. 7th place of Ukrainian «Wiki Loves Earth 2020». Created and uploaded by Sergnester - nominated by DimasSolo -- DimasSolo (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DimasSolo (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened. -- -donald- (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pavlo1 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very small for a 2021 landscape FP nominee. I'd like to see a full version twice this size or more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone else feel like we're having a canvassing problem with Ukraine photos? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... and oversaturated. --Cayambe (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but apparently downsized -- should the creator provide more resolution, I may re-consider. --A.Savin 21:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly I agree that it is too small and not very sharp even at this size, which is a shame as it is a beautiful view Cmao20 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unsharp, although not as bad as some other nominees in that department. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Wilfredor (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trillium erectum.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2021 at 22:53:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Melanthiaceae
Info: blooming red trillium (Trillium erectum). All by --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Lovely photo although IMO not 100% sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose sorry, but background and sharpness are imho not at FP level. --Ivar (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really feeling this as an FP, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar, I'm afraid Poco a poco (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. Moreover, relatively small resolution for this kind of easy subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not very sharp, but generally pleasant to look at. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Love the flower, see plenty of it when hiking the Catskills in May (as well as its more striking painted cousin), but it's unsharp at the center, as if the camera shook slightly. Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others --StellarHalo (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aliwal2012 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco City Hall 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2021 at 12:19:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United States
Info A high-resolution interior photo of San Francisco City Hall. I enjoy the warm light and I think it gives a really good sense of the style of architecture. You could argue it needs a perspective correction, but I think it's OK since it's clear the image was taken from an elevated perspective, and I don't want to mess with what I think is already an excellent photo. (Your thoughts?) created by T meltzer - uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I'm a bit sad it wasn't taken by someone skilled. Blown highlights, looking upward are things easy to deal with. If only someone like Diliff had been behind the camera! - Benh (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it needs a perspective correction. Left verticals are hanging to the right and right vertical are hanging to the left. --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a great interior, but I agree with Michiel, furthermore the pic is tilted clockwise, and overexposed on upper corners. --A.Savin 22:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above comments. Dizziness when looking to picture. Burnt area. --Mile (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Looks like the lack of perspective correction is likely to prevent this from becoming FP, IMO a shame but I understand the reason for opposing. Cmao20 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:White-cheeked-barbet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2021 at 08:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Deepugn (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition hides too much of the bird. Focus/definition is not good. Noisy. Might pass at QI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. I'd vote for it at QIC, but I agree that there could be opposing votes there, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, I agree you should give it a go at QIC. But the twigs hiding the bird mean that the composition is not FP for me, and it is a little noisy considering the resolution is not huge. Cmao20 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirchturm Alt-Graun.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2021 at 16:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers # Italy/Reschen lake>
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but what could make a 2005 image outstanding today? --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per Uoaei1. Very good photo, but too small for a 2021 FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eik met uitgebroken kroon. Locatie, Kroondomein Het Loo. 25-12-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 16:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae
Info Oak with broken crown. This part of Koninklijke Houtvesterij Het Loo will no longer intervene. There is a natural process taking place for more biodiversity. I like the winter light from the right in this photo.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well-done, but just too busy for FP for me. A VI probably. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree, sorry, Poco a poco (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SL Bundala NP asv2020-01 img17.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 13:20:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Glareola
Info A resting Small pratincole (Glareola lactea) in the Bundala National Park, Sri Lanka ---- all by A.Savin -- A.Savin 13:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Removed unsubstantiated accusation -- please no personal attacks --A.Savin 14:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serious, but unsubstantiated accusation

One should not approach a nesting (not resting) bird this close. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I know that I cannot expect fair votes from you, but nonetheless I'd like to make clear, I was not closer rather than for any other pictures of my Bundala session. Thanks --A.Savin 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Putting the snide comment to one side, if you were that close to other nesting birds then your behaviour is not as it should be. We need to respect the wildlife we photogrpah. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: This is quite a severe accusation which you please provide evidence for. I was not closer than for other photos -- to say exactly, this is a national park where you have to stay in the car, and nothing else did I. If the bird was sitting closer to the road than it normally should, that was definitely its "choice". --A.Savin 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand if your behaviour was a lack of knowledge, but it appears you still do not accept that the bird is nesting. Evidence links:Audubon [3], RSPB [4], UK research into safe distances from nesting birds [5] Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this all were not as absurd, I would probably have asked: "Do you think that the car should not have stopped". EOD, and please leave your personal attacks collapsed. P.S. #NeverForgetNeverForgive --A.Savin 14:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that face deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The quality is solid but the POV for this subject is convincing to me what also causes DOF problems, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support We even see the car reflection into the eye. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image to me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Glareola

File:সারিবদ্ধ ভাবে মাছ ধরা.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2021 at 13:16:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created & uploaded by Ashraful Islam Shimul - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great compo Poco a poco (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! --Kritzolina (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco.--Ermell (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, a nice one. I shudder at their fishing in this polluted river, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I voted for this when I was judging WLE Bangladesh. Cmao20 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 19:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Etaped (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Fun composition but not especially wow-y for me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fósil de coral (Gyrodendron lobatum), Nattheim, Alemania, 2021-01-18, DD 378-403 FS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2021 at 21:15:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Focus stacked image (composed of 26 frames) of a complete stock of Gyrodendron lobatum found in Nattheim, land of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. The dimensions of this examplar of extint coral are 56 x 43 x 36 mm (2.2 x 1.69 x 1.42 inches) and it lived in the Early Tithonian period and is approx. 150 million years old. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent photo in composition, colours, sharpness and lighting. I think this is the best focus stack you have done so far. Cmao20 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment closest area is not in focus and some parts are overexposed (too much contrast?). One more thought, cropped strong reflection doesn't help the whole composition. --Ivar (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree in general with your comments, there are some (IMHO small) areas of improvement, I'd like to wait for more feedback in this direction regarding the curves before I rework it. When it comes to the shadow, well, I can of course include the whole shadow (keeping this angle which IMHO was the best), the result would be an easier shot for FS and with far less more detail than in this version. In the Orthoceras FPC I included the shadow because by doing so I wasn't force to reduce detail, that would be different here. In general I also prefer this kin of surface for this kind of shots, it looks kind of more high-value. --Poco a poco (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Anthozoa

Image:St. Getrud, Kuhmühlenteich 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 10:17:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by SKopp - uploaded by User:SKopp - nominated by Nexo20 -- Nexo20 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nexo20 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very pretty and peaceful. SKopp, could you smooth out the blotchy parts of the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and quality. Cmao20 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and tranquil scene. --SM1 (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting left side, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I agree with Basile that the image would be better without the tree poking in at left. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see some banding in the sky --Llez (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP quality. The trees on the left are a bit dark and the saturation seems to be overdone. There's no colour profile embedded. The sky has some banding and JPG artefacts. -- Colin (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Coliin and Basile Morin --GRDN711 (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyphalosaurus (BMNHC Ph325) NMNS.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2021 at 06:52:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones and fossils#Class_:_Reptilia
Info A well-preserved slab of Hyphalosaurus containing five individuals, they are most abundant reptile genus of Jehol Biota in Cretaceous China. All by Tiouraren (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiouraren (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome! Good picture, but for FP, you need to do a little research and find out what species this is and from what epoch and/or approximately how long ago. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan Kekek! Hyphalosaurus is endemic to early Cretaceous Jehol group from western Liaoning of China, but I didn't take down the information of this specimen when it was exhibited last year, so I didn't mentioned its locality and geological horizon in the description. Besides, this slab was borrowed from Beijing Museum of Natural History for a special exhibition, which ended last May, its information, e.g. it belongs to either of two known Hyphalosaurus species or is undetermined (i.e. Hyphalosaurus sp.), might have been unavailable since it's been returned to the owner. --Tiouraren (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe if you contact the museum, they can supply the information to you. The important thing would be to add the information to the "Description" field on the file page, not this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Nominate it when the information is more complete. -- Tiouraren (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:NH505 Spiti Kaza Losar Jun18 D72 7797.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 13:58:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is it a surreal painting or what ;-) --A.Savin 15:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: very big on wow, but sharpness and noise leave a lot to be desired. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spectacular, but I'm having trouble with the idea of supporting the nomination. If you could possibly take another photo of this motif with much less noise, I'd love to see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Would love to go back for another one, but it is a 7-day trip with 3 days acclimatising to the 12,500' altitude! :-) I've applied mild noise reduction and uploaded a new version. Please see. --Tagooty (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I completely understand, but unlike the others, to me, this is not an FP. I understand the challenge involved in getting to the location, but is that so much a photography challenge or more a challenge of fitness, endurance and time? I don't think this challenge is analogous to shooting a fleeting moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-ish support per The Cosmonaut - but it's quite high resolution so I think it's OK. Cmao20 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one --ADARSHluck 4:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Weak support per The Cosmonaut. --Aristeas (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Support Well, considering how difficult it is to take such photos, and how beautiful the structure in the riverbank, it deserves full support. --Aristeas (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting --Wilfredor (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not the best quality, but very unique. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support Not very sharp at the corners, but the point of this image isn't really fine detail. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great as thumbnail, but the quality is clearly below FP level, even if it is kind of abstract Poco a poco (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Vadstena Castle.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2021 at 15:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Sweden
Info created & uploaded by Kokkenmodding - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but the upper crop and its lower counterpart are making me feel a little claustrophobic. I wish we could see a taller photo that showed more of the castle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm voting my taste here. Sorry for the slight delay in passage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really like this, and I actually like the fact that the composition fills the whole of the frame (kind of the opposite of Ikan's point, sorry haha) Cmao20 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. It works for me too. I like symmetry in general and particularly mirror images -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The symmetry is nice. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yukon Delta - Flickr - NASA Goddard Photo and Video.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2021 at 22:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info The delta of the Yukon River in Alaska. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this is a false-color image. But, we have featured a false-color satellite image before and so, it should not be a problem. -- StellarHalo (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the lines in the sea? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure, but probably sediments from the river. StellarHalo (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If so, they wouldn't be so neatly parallel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Ikan Kekek: I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing here. Could you add image notes to the areas where the lines are? StellarHalo (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Everywhere where you see the sea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you Ikan for pointing those lines out. I have asked experts and they said those lines are most likely digital artifacts. StellarHalo (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]