Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2017

File:Iridescent clouds during snowfall 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 11:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
Info Rainbow-colored/iridescent clouds during a snowfall over Lysekil, Sweden. The fringes of the clouds are so thin the water droplets in them produce rainbows. The photo is taken during some interesting weather in the afternoon so it is the sun you see and the dots are snowflakes. All by me -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My first thought was that maybe that's what happened last night in Sweden but then I saw the timestamp so we will have to do some more research. Regarding the picture I find it very good compositionally so Support from my side. --Code (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Code. Well what really happened in Sweden Friday night was that my cold got worse. Didn't think the White House would find out!! So sorry for causing this international incident... --cart-Talk 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Moody and interesting. I like how the blotchy clouds over the disc of the sun sort of imitate the lunar maria. Or maybe that's just me, who knows? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is certainly a good photo, though I haven't decided yet whether to support a feature for it, but I prefer File:Crepuscular rays and iridescent clouds during snowfall.jpg, which has more snow and the dark trees as a dramatic contrast with the sky. Just sky is not quite as striking to me and gives me less grounding, literally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like that pic very much too. Unfortunately, I think the cut sun in that will make it a no-go for the folks here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't realize there were objections to that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of the reasons it was decline at first at QIC where I took it to CR. Looking at past discussions people are generally opposed to things cut at the border of an image when it could have been avoided. The weather that day was very chaotic, clouds moving very fast in the strong wind and it was pure luck that the sun was even in that picture since I was mostly focusing on the rays. I thought the sun was totally hidden behind the cloud, but it broke through just as I pressed the button. --cart-Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you can stay out of the cold for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, just moon with clouds. --Karelj (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, but it is the sun. :) --cart-Talk 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is a sun. Sorry, but in such a case it is even more "common" image. --Karelj (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are very lucky to live in a place where such scenery is common and you can go out and take photos like this of iridescent clouds around the sun any day. How I envy you, it must be beautiful. It is not so common here. --cart-Talk 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: This image is far from common. He's just trying to save face and clearly failing to do so. We men often feel the need to defend our egos in this way... lNeverCry 21:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Clouds

File:Larnaca 01-2017 img37 LCA Airport.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the long depth of field and the decorations (structural elements?) on the ceiling, and the light is pretty good for an airport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting motive, well balanced and implemented. The contrasts of warm and cold give the image a special touch. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent perspective --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sharpness overall just ok, nice ceiling, the rest nothing wild, too dark overall Poc o² 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination. I for myself hesitated to suggest it, as I know airports with much more interesting iteriors. On the other hand, the picture is QI and it is almost impossible to create *perfect* photos of airport interiors, because, unlike Diliff's and Code's churches, they are never empty of people ;) -A.Savin 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Our churches are often busy, we just twist the truth by being highly selective about when to click the shutter. ;-) Diliff (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too boring for me. No wow. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Draceane – Lucas ^T 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having taken a similar picture that is one of the QI examples now used for "depth of field", I salute this image as exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to achieve. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PhuSangWTF 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bokeh looks somewhat weird but doesn't detract from the overall image. KennyOMG (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upper left part is somewhat dark, maybe this is improvable. The description says "English" but it obviously isn't. Should be fixed as well. Otherwise an excellent picture which would get my support. --Code (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dark left part attracts the attention to the right part, and that is most important part. Please don't reduce the left darkness too much --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different, thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picture is fine as it is, but the "English" description should be fixed. --cart-Talk 10:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment description fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've decided I like this enough to support a feature. It's best at laptop screen size, not at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WTF could be changed --The Photographer 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support People doing interesting things in interesting environments – wish we had more of that kind of images… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piling on. --Yann (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:River Narmada from Maheshwar Fort.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 18:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Sumitsurai - uploaded by Sumitsurai - nominated by Sumitsurai -- Sumitsurai (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sumitsurai (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm wowed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This requires HDR --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Too dark Ezarateesteban 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Neutral let´s wait Ezarateesteban 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the chosen composition and lighting work perfectly here. There are "precedents" btw., cf. this great image, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is great, and to me the whole point is that we're viewing a river and the opposite bank from a dark place, through its beautiful decorations. This is one case in which reducing the darkness would also reduce the magic (or if you prefer, the effect). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The windows make a beautiful frame to let you look out - and I think to lighten this darkness would spoil this frame. --PtrQs (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support to me the Darkness is nice, better than HDR. --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very poetic triptych, HDR would totally ruin it. --cart-Talk 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have included the shadows more. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The concept of framing is a nice idea, but the scene through the frame is too mundane, and not interesting. Foreground shadows should not look this dark, and should have a little detail -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without the dark foreground the lights falling on the ground won't look that beautiful IMHO. The contrast here is helping create a mood. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sumanta. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wouldn't necessarily object to a little more shadow detail, but full tone mapped HDR? No way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salar de Tara, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 64-67 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile. All by me, Poc o² 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Spectacular, though there's a slight ca in the clouds (top/left edges green and right magenta). On another note I think just the small portion of the road and the rocks above, with the clouds behind would be enough alone to make this an fp; but this has so much more. KennyOMG (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KennyOMG: I've reduced the CAs Poc o² 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now where's that thumbs up icon when you need it? :) KennyOMG (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any color fringing is very very minor and requires you to be actively searching for it. Beautiful pano. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of wow! in this picture --PtrQs (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great clouds and color. Maybe just a little too dark though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

LivioAndronico, I changed the category from Objects to Religious buildings interiors, I find that more appropriate. – Lucas ^T 08:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shimla night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info -- Perched on a hillside Shimla is the current capital and largest city of the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Previously it was capital of the Indian state of Punjab and, before independence, the summer capital of British India. Shimla is a major tourist destination owing to the large number of colonial buildings, temples, churches in the city, the UNESCO World Heritage Kalka-Shimla Railway, and the mild subtropical highland climate. All by me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo! So this is where the shot the backdrop for Blade Runner. --cart-Talk 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support After some days of waiting for the next wow - this is it! --PtrQs (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive night photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even though all the details are visible, the overall impression is too dark. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a conscious choice as I don't believe HDR should be about flattening out the tones, rather about pulling the highlights and pushing the shadows while trying to keep the original tonal balance of the picture. But that's just me. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that overly aggressive HDR would not have helped here; I just think that the source material you worked with was too dark, and regardless of whether you tried to "fix" it in post or not, the lighting is still not featurable in my opinion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, KoH, but I have long contended that magic hour pictures are not the only way to shoot night pictures and, depending on the scene, might not even be the best. I guess we agree to disagree on this point. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great picture for such a dark and humid night. How long was the exposure? WClarke 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1s + 4s + 15s, iso 200, f/8. Overall it's pretty close to the 4 sec exposures. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colors and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totally loved it. Great execution. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wat srichum 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting view, - but I think that color fringes had to be fixed --PtrQs (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Regretful Oppose due to insufficient image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support The new version is fine. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per fixable CA issues noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tomer T: I really like this photo with its unusual perspective and seeing that Khunkay isn't very active at the moment, I have fixed a version with most of the CA removed and a very, very slight noise reduction. Do you want me to upload it on this file? You can always rollback the edit if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that picture, so let's have a look. --PtrQs (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's see if this is enough or if I botched the job. Remember to purge your cache. --cart-Talk 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the fileliste I see 4 pictures, wherein #2 and #3 have a more copper-like gold and a violet sky. By the color of the sky I would guess, that the brownish gold is more realistic. Is it possible to combine the original gold-color with the good No-CA work? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Versions 3 & 4 are exactly (or should be) like ver 2, but with just two minor corrections on the CA of the statue. It is a curse that you always find something you've missed as soon as you upload a file. :-/ The first part of the CA removal was made in Lightroom with additional manual removal in Photoshop. It is possible that LR did something with the hue when it removed the CA. I'll see if I can put back the right hue. Files also "change" when you upload them since the different programs and browsers fiddle with the color. --cart-Talk 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I've nudged the spectrum two steps back towards the original brow-gold as requested. I think this is as far as I want to mess with this. Someone else can take over or revert if necessary. --cart-Talk 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by now - and a special praise for cart --PtrQs (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question BTW: is it possible to describe what we see in real english? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --cart-Talk 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Uoaei1: and @Daniel Case: to let them know that the pic is cleaned up now. --cart-Talk 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting, good quality. --Yann (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...forgot to support it too! ;) --cart-Talk 21:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought the curvature might be a distortion, but other photos of this Buddha show the same curvature. I would have loved a tad more sky, but I won't decline to support based on something that trivial. Impressive photo of a very impressive statue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 03:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW -- Wolf im Wald 18:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergwandeltocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italy) 23.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Mountain Walking Tour from Pejo to Lago Covel (1,839 m) in the Stelvio National Park (Italy). Views of the surrounding landscape. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color depth and well composed --Don (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors and stunning view. It reminds me of those pictures they had on chocolate boxes when I was a kid. --cart-Talk 09:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic and beautiful have a lady here --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a pretty spectacular picture, especially the lighted rocky mountainsides, and it's at its best at full size. I see the one tree in the near foreground all the way over to the right as a slight imperfection, but I doubt that cropping it out would make the overall composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk)
Support Like a Romantic painting --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Divine. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great layers of light. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 13:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017 -01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. I've taken a little series of pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior, of which I like -01 best, although that was a tough choice. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers about 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought to nominate it. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great! --cart-Talk 10:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support again. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info / Comment cart somehow achieved to turn my simple architectural pics into fancy triptychs, see (1) and (2). Thanks again! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--cart-Talk 11:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perspective, Komposition, technische Ausführung – alles große Klasse! Glückwunsch zu dieser gelungenen Arbeit. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 13:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pena Palace Sintra.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Pena National Palace. Sintra, Portugal. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great shot - unfortunately it's not up to the technical standards expected here, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but the things that actually bother me somewhat about this photo are, in order, the unsharp evergreens that take up most of the foreground and the hazy grayish background. Yes, the palace could be clearer, too, but if it were 100% sharp, I still would be unlikely to support a feature if the foreground and background were identical to what's there now. I'd encourage you to take more photos in better light without unsharp foreground trees (or at least fewer of them) if you make another trip to Sintra. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:View to One World Trade Center.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 18:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United_States
Info created and uploaded by Olga1969 – nominated by Lucas – Lucas ^T 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ – Lucas ^T 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need verticals fix and a less important noise reduction in the sky --The Photographer 18:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the photographer and offered to edit it from the RAW file, if these remain the only issues. – Lucas ^T 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Oppose because of the lights. I get what the photographer intended, but the new WTC blends with the sky way too much to serve as the intended centerpiece. The wonderful contrast with the golden reflections unfortunately only serve to exaggerate the issue. KennyOMG (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, I have to agree with KennyOMG. This wouldn't have been an issue if the pic wasn't so heavily saturated. I downloaded it and desaturated as much as 36% before it looked more normal and the tower contrasted very nicely with the sky, the pic also looked clearer. Taking a look at this user's photos most of them are the same way so maybe it's a setting on her camera. I would gladly support a desaturated and vertical-fixed version though. --cart-Talk 21:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I nominated this picture for QI (it passed), but I'm not sure about FP. cart, I'd like to see your edited version. Olga1969, is it OK with you if we have a chance to look at cart's edit of your photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can wait until Lucas has got a response from Olga. As nominator he is now aware of this and may act on it when/if he reprocesses the file from RAW. I can put my version in my dropbox later if you want to check it out. --cart-Talk 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this version because as Kenny points out correctly it was overcooked—it looks like it should be used in an ad (not that that's always a dealbreaker). I would be interested in cart's version. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a link to a rough draft on Ikan's talk page. --cart-Talk 09:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As others already pointed out this picture deserves a careful postprocessing and could then certainly become FP. --Code (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination For now I think it's tidier to close this and renominate later when the verticals, tilt, noise and oversaturation are fixed by someone, preferably working from the RAW file. – Lucas ^T 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forest Path.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Lathronniel - uploaded by Lathronniel - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File name needs to be changed, this is not a "Forest Path" but a "Forest Stream". --cart-Talk 13:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice photo, but not in my opinion outstanding enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I hate to drag this one out but there are just so many things wrong with it that properly naming it won't fix. It's cluttered compositionally, the white balance is thrown off by the preponderance of orange leaves in the image and was not corrected, and on the whole it's as unsharp as the aperture setting would suggest it would be. We have a higher standard for this sort of picture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Aiguille-du-Midi-sundown.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 12:45:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aiguille du Midi (France, Chamonix) in summer after sundown, seen from the Mont Blanc refuge

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Garrondo - uploaded by Garrondo - nominated by Saturnalia0 -- Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is way too small for FP.

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.

- Nice photo, but the absolute minimum size for FP (and QI) is 2 megapixels, and normally, photos anywhere near that small are never featured, nowadays, unless they are incredibly fantastic or historically important. Please read the "Guidelines for nominators" above and Commons:Image guidelines before you nominate another photo. Good choice, though, otherwise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beijzelde vruchten van een Esdoorn (Acer). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 06:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Acer #Family Sapindaceae.
Info Icy fruits of a Maple (Acer). Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The DOF is quite shallow, rendering parts of the subject blurry I would have liked to see sharp. I also find the light not the best, it looks a bit dull. There is no wow factor for me, because I feel many photographers have a similar shot in their collection when starting macro photography. The ice itself is also not the best looking IMO—while I'm no expert—it looks partly molten, with many small rounded blobs of ice. The centered composition with the OOF branch crossing the main subject is also not optimal. – Lucas ^T 07:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What's in focus is great, but not enough is in focus, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henk Fortuin, het Lage Licht foto5 2017-02-01 15.44.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Michielverbeek - uploaded by Michielverbeek - nominated by Michielverbeek (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most probably too yellow. Yann (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yann is right --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:20110421 Tbilisi Georgia Panoramic.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 18:51:52

Info Pretty dull, nondescript and shows only a portion of the city. Saw that Poco has 3 panos that are much superior to anything else on Commons. Both this and this are superb (apart from half the image leaning to the right that needx fixing), either would be an excellent replacement. I guess this makes my 2nd active nom so I can do it on Tue, or if someone else wants to do the honors... (Original nomination)
Delist -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We delist when it clearly falls short of our modern standards, not if we regret our original decision or if there are better pictures around. This is not enwp, we can afford to have multiple similar FPs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a very good picture to me. No reason to delist. I think that delisting should take place only when it seems like an obvious step. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others. lNeverCry 03:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I have learnt this is not enwp. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of symmetry, too much clarity and contrast. --Code (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whites are blown out, especially in the top corners. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7673.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nitpicks like the noisy upper edges aside, I'm sadly not wowed by it enough. It's a decent photo though. I just feel like a different camera position and composition would have emphasized the specialty of the wall better. – Lucas ^T 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if it lacks the drama associated to this place, it is a pretty good description picture. The details on the wall are interesting, and even the people give a sense of the place, in a more mundane manner. The photo teaches. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tomas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't decided how or even whether to vote on this photo, but in some ways, I prefer several of your other photos of the Kotel to this one: File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7689.jpg has a satisfying near-rectilinearity as compared to this one's slant, and I like the motion of the men walking toward the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7691.jpg, which concentrates on the women's section, shows the pitchers for the blessing on washing, putting the wall in a different context, though there's a dust spot that should be cleaned toward the right above the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7690.jpg shows men praying and touching the wall from an appealing angle. None of the photos are perfect and all can be critiqued, but all are good and different. However, compared to the others, I can't think of anything that strikes me about this one as special. So that's likely to result in either a non-vote or a mild oppose vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas; a very static image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not a bad raw material for a great photo. I think that a crop would give it a much more forceful look, the angle and the wide floor makes it a bit touristy. See note. I downloaded it and tried it, it came out very nice. Try it. Anyone else agree? --cart-Talk 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Good eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my own remarks above and others' remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:16-11-30 Cimitero Monumentale Milano RR2 7543.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a well executed photo and a worthy QI, but it misses the wow factor for FP status. You might find the sight interesting and impactful but the photo doesn't bring this out for me I'm afraid. – Lucas ^T 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - Could be a bit sharper, but the composition works for me. I like the contrast of the Cimitero Monumentale with the modern buildings to its right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 08:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. It seems the building is cut in half at left. Yann (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that way because it is. You could let me know if I'm missing something, but the way I see it, the only question is whether the result of that is good. You find that it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow per Lucas. I get the feeling the goal was the contrast between the old and new buildings balanced by the similar form of the old building and the Unicredit Tower (as well as one of the other buildings whose names I know but cannot remember and do not have enough time to look up right now). But there's too much going on to get it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only mildly support this photo, and there's no argument with "no wow", but what do you find overly complex about this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: If you imagine the flower bed and empty driveway/whatever space at the bottom cropped out, along with some of the left (maybe I'll have to make it in a note), you get an image with a lot more harmonious vertical forms, and the similarity I noted is more evident. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. See what I mean? Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably less interesting, but yes, also simpler, and I do see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 16:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:Agnes Monkelbaan - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a beautiful picture that also merits a feature. I've gone back and forth on whether this one or File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 06.jpg is a better composition, and today I prefer this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'd (also) support the other one --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. Ikan, why on earth would it be problematic to have two good photos by the same photographer running simultaneously? Isn't that what is done all the time? You have no problem nominating one of Poco's photos even if he is running two noms of his own. I can't understand what you were thinking, saying something like that. --cart-Talk 21:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably a ridiculous thought. And I certainly don't think it's problematic in the least. So nevermind, I'll edit it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was afraid we had reverted to a time before the suffragettes when a woman was counted as half a man. --cart-Talk 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo, beautiful composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I prefer the other one. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Do you think the other composition is different enough to also be an FP? Perhaps it would be a good thing to nominate that one, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think they might be too similar to both feature; how about adding it as an alt? (I think the proper rule for alts is not "are they different edits/crops of the same raw file" but rather "are they similar enough that they cannot both be featured.") -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that alts must actually be different versions of the same shot and that these two photos would definitely be too different for one to be an alt, although the similarity might work against a feature for both. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates about this issue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Composition and colors are both very well executed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank User:Ikan Kekek to nominate my photo.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm delighted by the positive response to this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Casa histórica de Abbasi, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 77.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 19:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info View of one of the six courtyards of the Abbāsi House, a large traditional historical house located in Kashan, Iran. Built during the late 18th century, it is said to have been the property of a famous cleric. All by me, Poc o² 19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question I hesitate to ask, but did you wilfully change the crop for showing that blue border on the right? --PtrQs (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PtrQs: no, that was not on purpose, fixed Poc o² 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely symmetry and color. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very picturesque --PtrQs (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Draco volans 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dramatic picture even though it's a museum specimen, so I'll Support, but I'm sure you'll have complaints about the lack of sharpness of the head, so you might try your hand at sharpening it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done You are right, sharpness of the head is corrected --Llez (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PtrQs (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Llez, please add a category above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Sorry --Llez (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 21:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gibraltar Barbary Macaques BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 18:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info all by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stunning image and I feel it has FP potential. I have two problems: 1. It looks a bit soft, I would sharpen it more, there is detail to be revealed in the fur. 2. the ~~powerlines~~ cable car cables are distracting, sadly. I saw that they are easy to remove, and I did it for fun. Feel free to nominate this as an alternative if you like it, or if you allow I can nominate it myself:
– Lucas ^T 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me, this is an FP as is. The power lines don't disturb me at all; they're part of the deliberately somewhat unsharp but sufficiently clear urban background. The slight softness of the monkeys is just that - slight softness. I wouldn't object to judicious sharpening, but I think they're quite clear enough, as this is not a species-identification photo but a touching urban scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cables are probably a cable car, not power lines, but it is better without them. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, the slanted support structure barely visible is a telltale sign, lighter power lines don't require that. – Lucas ^T 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cables don't bother me since they follow the composition of the monkeys but there is room for a bit more light in the photo. The name of the file should also be fixed since it doesn't mention the main motif, the macaques. --cart-Talk 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the name. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll Support it, hoping that it might turn out a bit brighter. ;) It is such great image otherwise. --cart-Talk 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The face of the left hand animal is blurred and I don't like the cables, nor the lighting. Charles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We can discuss the technical and compositional issues all we want, but the fact for me is that I can't get past that pose. I think we already know what the 2017 PotY will be, based on how the public votes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pepe Lopez Peugeot 208 T16 (3).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 17:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created and uploaded by Harpagornis - nominated by Yann (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, there is. And the quality is quite good. -- Yann (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool action photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Busy background would be a no-go if the car weren't catching air. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Touchdown --PtrQs (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harpagornis (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bob Collowan (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:PlayaVarese-04920.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, somewhat dull lighting, the clouds are a bit interesting, but the brown water destroys it and I see no clear subject. It looks like a just decent tourist shot to me, sorry. – Lucas ^T 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition but the blown highlights on the surf and building are too much ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky does not really impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request What is the standard for sky expected here? Ezarateesteban 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:RPM abstract at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles (maybe there is a better category)
Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been back at it trying more abstract photography, and have been evolving more in the previous weeks, including off of what I nominated last week. I this photograph I tried to make my subject more recognizable, while still bringing abstract elements into the photograph through the blur and distortion. As with my other photograph I nominated, this may see opposition, though thought it was worth sharing. Thanks. -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It works for me. It looks like a still from a time travelling movie. Exciting, ratteling, blurred. (And I feel bad opposing abstracts, I feel some have a place as FP) – Lucas ^T 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question sorry but to me its only a unsharp picture? --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support It becomes an abstract art photo if it somehow stimulates your fantasy. This is clearly telling me: "Houston, we have a problem." --cart-Talk 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, like Ralf, I just find this a blurred figurative photo, not something I really consider an abstraction. Also, the feelings that it gives me are eye strain and wanting to yell "Get out of the car! You're drunk!" Perhaps for a movie, this could be a useful blurring for a drunk driving scene, but for abstract photography, I want to see non-figurative shapes and lines. [shrug] That could be my assumptions and limitations speaking, but you could also call it something else: My personal taste. So I salute the fact of experimentation, but not this result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan. The drunk driving thing was one of my first thoughts... I've never done such a horrible thing myself of course... lNeverCry 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not for me. Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This might not be a good sharp image (don't think it was even planned as one) but it is giving an old sci-fi film feel. I personally liked it. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose might be a good photo, but not a FP for me. -- -donald- (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good photo for what it's trying to do, but I don't see it as being in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 08:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:New glass doors and windows in storage.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 12:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded by cart - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How about something different? I think this could make a good unconventional FP. What about you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this was certainly unexpected! This is sort of the 2.0 version of this FP (same manufacturer). I liked the contrast between the very white new glass-things and the dark grimy old storage space, which is why I took this photo. I'm certainly crazy enough to like subjects like this and given the light conditions (close to pitch-dark) I'm more than pleased how the photo turned out, but I will ~~Abstain~~ as author and let the rest of the community decide about this one. --cart-Talk 12:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It sure doesn't look close to pitch black. What is the light source? I'd be curious to see a raw photo that shows something closer to the view seen by your eyes in that space, if you have one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The light source is three small windows at the end of the hall, and the day was cloudy. I'll dig out some of the unprocessed pics later when I get home. --cart-Talk 13:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ikan, why do you think it would deserve FP? I personally need more than this. More wow, more photographic qualities, a clear purpose of the image besides just showing something in the world, something anyone with a camera walking by would be able to capture when composing it a bit thoughtfully. This image, while I appreciate the focus stacking (but wouldn't have noticed on my own) and some leading lines composition, looks just like a regular QI which is too boring for FP status. The warehouse distracts from the windows as well. If the photo would emphasize something more, for example how the windows are held in place, then it would be another matter. If this would become FP, I would try to nominate a lot more of my own "normal" photos too. – Lucas ^T 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the shapes and contrast of light and dark are interesting to look at. I admit I am not as sure about this composition as some others I've nominated, but I thought it would be worth seeing what the consensus opinion is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After getting back home and not being as distracted as I was at work, I've had a think about this. I was very surprised by the nom since I have never thought of this as a possible FPC and at first I thought I had missed something. Still I have to be true to my own gut instinct and try to view this as any FPC, and therefore I'm moving my vote to Oppose. If the contrast had been more dramatic and the sharpness better, it might have worked. But this photo was taken after I had dropped my camera and the mechanical shutter didn't work. The electronic shutter only goes up to 1 sek, so in order to get enough light in I had to crank up the ISO and go for a large aperture. Not the best combo for sharp photos. The crop at the sides is also a bit too tight. I don't think there is much need for any links to unprocessed/raw versions since they are just very dark versions of this. Btw, camera is now fixed. Thanks anyway. Feel free to vote any way you please on this, you may see something that I don't. We all have different tastes. --cart-Talk 18:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - With the photographer opposing, I don't feel like it makes sense to continue this nomination. Thanks for your votes and comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airborne by Christopher Klein, Munich, February 2017 -2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 15:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info "Airborne" by Christopher Klein, an art installation representing a gas molecule. Built in 2008 for The Linde Group's headquarters, the Angerhof, in Munich; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support F!o!P! As well as the self-portrait of sorts tucked in near the bottom . Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though quality could be a little better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good contemporary sculpture, well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 23:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love molecules. --Karelj (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flood under the Old Route 49 bridge crossing over the South Yuba River in Nevada City, California.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Kelly M. Grow/ California Department of Water Resources, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a bit of CA left, I wasn't able to remove it completely. Seeing the size, and that it cannot be retaken, it should be OK. -- Yann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive composition, sharperning fallen water is always difficult --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yann, I have a version with most of the remaining CA removed. Interested? --cart-Talk 23:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter: Sure! Yann (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please revert if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has happened before at times, I can't tell the difference. Where was the CA? Anyway, this is a dramatic picture, so I'll join everyone in

Supporting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see some of the "worst" places, compare the pile of large grey boulders on the right side, there was a lot of bright green fringes there. Second, look at the railing on the bridge, each upright post had a red line on one side and a green on the other. You could also check out the two men on the left side, they are no longer smeared by red and green shadows. CA is like your dust spots, once you see it you can't unsee it. ;) --cart-Talk 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now this is a bridge over troubled water. I can't believe those people are actually standing on it ... I wouldn't be (See my own encounter with a similar situation here). Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Michielverbeek -- WClarke 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Ice formations 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
Info Icicles and ice formations on a granite cliff in Gåseberg, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. The "growth rings" or banding on the icicles occurs as the water in the soil above the cliff thaws during the day and freezes during the night. All my me -- cart-Talk 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this series a lot and respect you for preferring this photo, though I prefer the other ones that feel to me like they show flow more and look more waterfally, especially File:Ice formations 4.jpg and File:Ice formations 5.jpg, and specifically in terms of this photo, I prefer File:Ice formations 3.jpg, which because it shows more height shows the flow of the ice more. But every photo in this series is quite interesting. Perhaps more than one could be featured, eventually? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The textures in the icicles are rather mesmerizing at full resolution. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 03:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Ice

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by ESA & MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/RSSD/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA - uploaded by A2soup - nominated by A2soup -- A2soup (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best full disc image of Mars I know of. It's been around for a while but was only freely licensed today after I emailed them, as the ESA has been moving towards free licensing. -- A2soup (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Btw, can you tell me: what is the small dot/satellite above mars at about 7 o'clock? --PtrQs (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, the ESA caption doesn't mention it. It's about the right size to be Deimos, but Deimos is in a nearly perfect equatorial orbit, and due to this I can't think of a combination of angles that would make appearing where it does in the image plausible. My guess would be a bright star or planet in the background. It could also be a camera artifact I guess. A2soup (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. Charles (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Any photograph like this of a planet in our solar system is going to have a high degree of uniqueness, though I'm not blown away by this one. The colors are nice, though the resolution and detail isn't anything special, especially when compared to other similar photos of planets, like this one of Pluto from 2015. Sorry. WClarke 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because this image was taken in 2007. However, there are no FP or even QI or VI images of the entire planet with details. I would Support featuring this until we have a better one, and probably even after that, as a historical image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support lNeverCry 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree that resolution leaves quite a bit to be desired, but stunning nonetheless. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Dull lighting, no wow for me. Also per WClarke. Yes, it's special because of the subject, but as a non-expert this is not interesting to look at. I find this falls into the category of the more boring planet photos and I would gladly support the more exciting ones out there. – Lucas ^T 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could do a good service if you can find some higher-quality NASA photos of the entire planet of Mars and upload them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, I never commented on resolution, but on lighting and overal photographic qualities. I realise that we get what we get here and it certainly is a novelty subject, but I feel this is better suited as VI and comparing it with majority of the space FPs we have I just find it not exciting enough. Looking at the other replies below, there are "better" images of Mars out there. I'm fine with being the only opposer though. – Lucas ^T 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, you've stated before, if my memory isn't playing tricks with me, that you don't have much interest in astronomy. It looks like most of the rest of us do. And novelty is quite an important reason for a feature. It's way too soon to be jaded with sizable full-planet pictures of Mars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several big Mars photos on NASA pages (1 2 3) , but how do we know if they are free? --cart-Talk 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, under U.S. law, all government pictures that are not classified (or in the case of C.I.A. photos and the like, declassified) are freely usable by the public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that all those images are mosaic composites of low-altitude images taken by orbiters, as you can easily see by looking near the edges where the mapping of the images onto a globe breaks down. The level of detail is obviously very high, but the verisimilitude, as you might imagine, is lower. This is, to my knowledge, the highest quality image of the entire planet taken from the perspective depicted.

I would also add that the second image linked above, despite its wide dissemination, is actually highly misleading, as it maps images from a significantly less-than-global portion of the Martian surface onto a globe, distorting the size and location of the features depicted (primarily the Valles Marineris), as can easily be seen when referencing a global map of Mars or either of the other images linked above, which both show Valles Marineris in a true global mosaic. The imagery for that mosaic was obtained by the Viking 1 orbiter (the first US Mars orbiter), which orbited at a 39.5˚ inclination and was therefore unable to image the entire surface - it was the best they could do at the time. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A2soup, thanks for the explanation. Nice to get all the ins and outs of these pictures sorted out. It also confirms that I should stay away from uploading space pics, since I don't know enough about it. :) But they are pretty and interesting! --cart-Talk 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Pont-canal de l'Orb cf07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 22:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 23:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is my favorite of your photos of this motif. File:Pont-canal de l'Orb cf03.jpg is also quite good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 03:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition Charles (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bob Collowan (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Râşnov Citadel (Rosenauer Burg) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shame about the people. Charles (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Generally well-done, but as a slightly unsharp (especially the left edge) 7 MP image with no mitigating factors or the feeling of "wow, we have to promote this even if the quality is a bit lower than usual." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH --PtrQs (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. Seems to me that the image might have had some serious overexposure on the building which was brought under control at the cost of looking overprocessed (something about the blue in the sky doesn't strike me the right way). Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it; the composition is good and the path with people walking up and down reminds me of a picture book -- Thennicke (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support no pseudo sharpness visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pudelek, could you possibly sharpen the citadel a bit? I find absolutely nothing wrong with the composition. The only thing that makes me unlikely to vote for a feature is the noted slight unsharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek - mayby now?? --Pudelek (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pudelek. It's definitely better. I'm deliberating about whether to weakly support a feature now or to remain neutral. I don't have any questions about whether it's a featurable composition and a very good picture, and you improved it noticeably. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the composition, but the technical part could be better. Overall nice work! -- Wolf im Wald 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Wolf im Wald. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Thennicke --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sognefjorden sett frå Skjersnes.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Norway
Info created by bep - uploaded by bep - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seen on QIC. Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Very interesting light. Good photographer; I've been enjoying his pictures and sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pleasant composition. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmmm.... --cart-Talk 23:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I'm probably off for some days I will support it in advance - Comment trusting that the CAs (lower border of the rope and the cliffs on the right bank) will be fixed. --PtrQs (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bep: As you surely work with the RAW, could you try to fix this? Thanks in advance! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be really picky to spot th CA there, but since this is my first FP nomination, I will take a stab on removing it. --Bep (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new version should be OK. --Bep (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a wonderful scene! --Schnobby (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love its smokiness ... I can practically taste salmon in my mouth as I look at it, feel the cold breeze against my cheek, and a slight sense of dread at the prospect of the cold depths below. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info The battle of Fimreite, a naval battle fought on 15 June 1184 between King Magnus Erlingsson and the Birkebeiner pretender Sverre Sigurdsson, was staged in the upper left part of the fjord. I lost my (cheap) camera remote taking this picture. It now lives on the bottom of the fjord with all the Viking swords. --Bep (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 16:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Allegory Treaty of the Pyrenees Louvre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 09:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Looks good, but is the white balance in the painting a little yellow? The other two photos I see of it in Category:Treaty of the Pyrenees both seem more white, and both were taken in the afternoon in wintertime: File:Allegory Treaty of the Pyrenees Louvre INV20349.jpg, File:Plafond du salon de la Paix (Louvre).jpg -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done check now thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks a lot better to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 13:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

LivioAndronico, please use a better fitting FP category next time. I changed the FP category from "Objects" to "Interiors", please tell if you have a reason for the Objects category. – Lucas ^T 13:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:Dllu - ~~nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very good Alvesgaspar/The Photographer-style work by Dllu. A tad soft at full size, but full size is about as big as you could get without severely violating residents' privacy, and I really enjoy looking around the form of the photograph and its many differences within a theoretically uniformly boxy structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It look like a voyeur picture performed by myself --The Photographer 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. Have you made such comments before when similar photos were up for discussion at FPC? If not, what's different this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on privacy issues several times before (and see current FPC). Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[1] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [2]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the mature discussion. Charles (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dllu, what do you mean about the field of view being similar to that of the human eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where could you get this clear a view of bedrooms with a naked eye? Is the view this clear from across the street? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was taken from 100 Van Ness Ave, a high rise residential building right across the street. dllu (t,c) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And is the view just as clear from there with the naked eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [3]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [4]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [5]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (poor English) I'm not agree. See template:FoP-Spain or template:FoP-Portugal.
Support Very nice (cute).--Lmbuga (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the freedom of speech and to express yourself can be used in much better ways than to point a lens into unsuspecting people's bedrooms. --cart-Talk 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will duly Abstain now. Lmbuga: Not nominating or supporting this picture for a feature in no way denies dllu freedom of expression. You'd have a stronger case if the photo were nominated for deletion and deleted, but even then, it would be a matter of policy rather than a way to prevent him from taking the photo and posting it elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. dllu (t,c) 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support all these nominations here, whichever is real and counts :) I get the slight weirdness factor but its such a fascinating view with cool geometric composition, combined with just the fascination of seeing the world from a different perspective... I get the complaints but I think it is zoomed out enough to skip the peeping tom look. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so this is a really weird nomination, its quite likely my vote was after the period but given the confusion surrounding this one I'm going to IAR and just go for it EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, your addition seems incorrect to me. Shouldn't all the votes from when I was still nominating this photo count? I think everyone assumed they would. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, I see what you mean. I edited my lengthy reply here and made a new FPC talk discussion about it, to clarify the rules for the future. – Lucas ^T 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=8|oppose=1|neutral=1|featured=yes|category=Places/Architecture|sig=– [[User:Lucasbosch|Lucas]][[User_talk:Lucasbosch|<font color="black"><sup>T</sup></font>]] 08:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)}}

EoRdE6's vote was not in any of the two voting periods so I excluded him from the count, Lmbuga's vote was between active voting windows, I included the vote anyway.– Lucas ^T 08:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the previous FPC-results-ready-to-review so that the FPCBot can act on the reviewed one– Lucas ^T 08:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Egyptian Scribe - Louvre January 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 19:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Bradley Weber - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not for FPC, face is unsharp in top left and crop is too tigh Ezarateesteban 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree. On the same basis, it could have a hard time at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A crop such as this is "fashionable" for portraits, not so good for FPs of statues though. --cart-Talk 11:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Hérault River cf01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 16:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! --cart-Talk 17:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! -- Wolf im Wald 18:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's good timing to get the cormorant flapping its wings at the very moment that magical surf was coming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bird is not flapping its wings, it's drying them. They stand like that for ages. Charles (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. Still a striking photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice moment --The Photographer 13:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:U 871 Ölsta.tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 13:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
Info created by Creator:Bengt A. Lundberg - uploaded by Biltvätt - nominated by Ainali -- Ainali (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ainali (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me this photo is more of VI than FP here on Commons. Speaking of the photo itself, there is the very large black shadow behind the stone in sharp contrast to the very brightly colored stone which does not make it a good wow-y photo. As a representative for rune stones, I don't like it at all. This stone is brought from its original context to the open-air museum (Skansen) where it has been painted in garish colors that could only have been fashionable in the 90s. The paint is only for the benefit of the tourists at Skansen, to make the markings more visible. There is no evidence that the stones were ever painted in this way. For me this feels very much like a sort of "Viking Disneyland". A nice photo of a Swedish rune stone would be something along the lines of this or this, IMO. --cart-Talk 18:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The section en:Runestone#Colour does not seem to be as sure as you are, but I'll check with experts at the Swedish National Heritage Board tomorrow about the coloring. Ainali (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that paint wasn't used, just not such bright, opaque colors as these. The true pigments and the medium they were mixed with (giving the paint a translucent quality) could not have covered the stone in the way modern paints do. --cart-Talk 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just talked to some colleagues at the Swedish National Heritage Board that are runestone experts and they say that is possible that this is how runestones looked back in the day, there are runestones from Öland found with traces of this sort of coloring (however not on runestones of the stonetype in this particular stone). In 1991 this painting was done with red lead and white lead, colors available long before the vikings (your link is to a rock art picture which is thousands of years older) both to show how they may have looked like and to see if it would preserve the stone better from lichen. BUT, regardless of the accuracy of the painting of the stone, this is how the runestone looks like today and it is a notable object (with articles in 5 languages already) and I want to remind you that this is not a candidate for Valued Image for runestones in general. It clearly has value according to the Featured picture criteria just in documenting this object as such. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the effort to talk to the Heritage Board. My comment was based on discussions I've had with the paint restoration expert at Gotland Museum regarding their rune stones (or rather picture stones) so it's scholar against scholar. I linked to that other image to show how paint/pigments using non-modern biding materials looked, that has not changed over time. As for VI, I was suggesting it could be a VI for this particular stone (and I really think it should be that too), not all of them. BUT, as you say, this is a photo of the stone today and I still think it is far from the artistic photo that is a requirement for FPs here with the wow factor and all. FPs on different language Wikipedia is another thing, where a photo is more judged on its strictly encyclopedic value. Perhaps you could ask ArildV to take a photo of the stone, he is a master of good lighting and would do this beautifully, I'm sure. --cart-Talk 08:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture stones are different things (and usually much older), so it's not really scholar aginst scholar, rather two scholars talking about separate phenomenon. Runestones : a colourful memory is recommended reading which supports that runestones were painted this way (but now we are really far off topic for the FP discussion, all this should be irrelevant for how votes are casted). Ainali (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We stray off topic all the time. ;) Anyway, I've nominated the pic for VI. --cart-Talk 11:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination hasn't been made visible at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan, I fumbled the last step. This is probably one reason you shouldn't edit at work... you get distracted. ;) --cart-Talk 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per cart. From my own minimal experience with Swedish runestones, I recall them being sparsley painted compared to this, and for that they actually looked better on cloudy days ("Viking Disneyland" ... yup, that's about right). In fact it seems like this picture was punched up a bit much—it's not oversaturated, but it still seems like it's trying a bit too hard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image has not been digitally manipulated but is scanned from an analogue photo. It is taken by Bengt A Lundberg in his service of the Swedish National Heritage Board with the purpose of documenting it so one should expect it to be a faithful representation and not an artistic rendering of reality. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A scanned print ... OK, that explains it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prague 07-2016 Metro img5 LineB Andel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 00:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by A.Savin. --A.Savin 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stellar composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first for a split second I thought it was the interior of an airplane. Nonetheless the curves make for an interesting photograph. -- WClarke 06:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interestelar composition --The Photographer 16:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like where you would wait for the transport to Moonbase Alpha. Too bad that one guy ruins the symmetry, though. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 07:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Campione del Garda houses with cliffs.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 19:41:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info all by me – Lucas ^T 19:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 19:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I struggle to see FP in this. Charles (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, could you please elaborate? – Lucas ^T 08:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The composition must be intended to be artistic as it doesn't show the street well and I'm afraid the concept doesn't appeal. I see nothing special. Sorry. I didn't check any technical details. 10:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose For all the denoising and other work you did, it still has a fair amount of it near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, I hesitated to denoise it further, to not destroy more detail. But I agree, the levels lifting shows some noise, I hope for a better camera in the future to get more leeway with that. – Lucas ^T 08:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, this isn't working for me, it just looks weird. I think for such a composition to be wow-y you need to have almost identical and very centered structures on either side of the mountain, like a colonnade, trees or something. With the houses not matching and not having the same perspective/part of the pic, the photo becomes unbalanced. Without seeing the end of the street, it also feels a bit like sitting in a deep well looking up, not a very pleasant experience. --cart-Talk 12:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for the comments. If I get there a second time I might try to do it differently. – Lucas ^T 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hinckley Daysailor 42 by D Ramey Logan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created and such by -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. The breakwater adds an unusual element to this photo. But please add a geotag and much better description plus categories. Since you have entered this in the "Sports" FP category instead of "Objects/Vehicles/Sailboats", I guess the pic is from some competition and that plus location should also be explained. --cart-Talk 09:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, the photo is of a "Yacht Racing" in an annual NHYC Regatta.--Don (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling us! Now could you please add that to the file's description and fix the geocode and category too. Much obliged. :) --cart-Talk 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, 33.730412, -118.135916 done.. --Don (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's great. I've added the rest of the info and improved the categories on the file's page for you. Having all that info there is just as important as the picture itself for an FP. Hope I got it right. --cart-Talk 13:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1/500 s not fast enough to freeze motion. Charles (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 03:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 19:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get what is featurable in this picture ? The quality is average and the composition is very poor. --Selbymay (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has no wow for me personally. It looks like a too ordinary shot. – Lucas ^T 21:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dalmatian fetching a stick.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 20:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info all by me – Lucas ^T 20:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 20:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I immediately noticed this at thumbnail size on opening the page. I love the dynamism of the picture. By the way, we would call that a stick, not a tree branch. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it, but can you do anything about the blown white bits? Charles (talk)

Charles, I already adjusted the levels in the RAW file so that there is a small white area and a small black area and not any extensive clipping. Examining the jpg, there is detail on its head, right next to the white point. I feel bringing highlight detail out even more would look unnatural, similar to snow photos. – Lucas ^T 07:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support worth asking. Charles (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cool. --A.Savin 02:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Goood boy! (pant pant pant) Goooooooooood boy! Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured. --cart-Talk 09:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool indeed Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Helgolandpanorama vom Pinneberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't see the point in this photo. Despite the claim it was taken from the highest point on the island, it seems to be the point with the worst view. There are three ugly concrete slabs dominating the photo, along with dirt paths. The distortions of a 360 panorama mean it is very hard to appreciate what the actual scene looks like. The island looks like this and there are high cliffs all round where the photo was taken. Whereas the 360x180 photos have a dedicated viewer that removes the distortion, this sort of image just doesn't work well unless the view is fantastic. I suggest you concentrate on finding the best angle from which to get the best view, and select what you want to photograph. A 360, by its nature, cannot be selective and doesn't really have a composition. -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Colin: , @Yann: I thought about presenting another cut with less foreground as in the other version. But I already heard the critics, the picture would be too much like a letterbox and that there would be not to see enough in the foreground. --Milseburg (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I think you mean a postcard. A letter box is literally a box that letters are put into.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the letter-box critique at that time like this: A Panorama should not have the format of the slit of a letter box. In fact this is not my opinion. --Milseburg (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I don't see why not. I tend to be a pragmatist on things like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. Nicely done panorama but the chosen camera position isn't interesting enough for me – Lucas ^T 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jake Kiley (Strung Out) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP4953 nmz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Smial - uploaded by Smial - nominated by -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of the motion blur, I'm inclined to support because of the expression, but similar question as for the other one: Is that a reflection of him and the guitar in the upper left corner of the frame? If so, fine, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reflection, it's part of the stage construction. --Smial (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo is sharp, expressive and has some action but... somehow the wow eludes me. It's cropped rather tight and the light is very flat for a stage photo. Making a face and waiving a guitar is not enough to send shivers down my spine, sorry. --cart-Talk 21:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight, per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carter — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case, crop. --Karelj (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cropped, I agree with W.carter Olivier LPB (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount Ararat and the Araratian plain (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 19:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Սէրուժ - uploaded by Սէրուժ - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 19:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 19:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply majestic - I don't care about petty technical issues in this case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agreed, but would prefer a somewhat wider crop from the original. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning. Charles (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely stunning use of line to draw the viewer's eyes to the distance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ethereal, the mointains look like they are floating --cart-Talk 09:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really love it. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 14:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 07:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Watford Jon (Argy Bargy) IMGP4754 smial wp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info all by me -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the "Hey, you!" gesture and expression. What are we looking at that appears to be a narrow diagonal shaft of light? Is that exactly what it is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good stage photo, but I would also like to get rid of that part of the stage rig. Right now it is "impaling" the poor guy. ;) Had it ended up anywhere else than in his mouth/head, I don't think it would have been an issue. --cart-Talk 21:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek and cart: That is part of the stage construction. Besides some basic corrections (WB, contrast, exposure, crop, perspective, dust spot removal, if necessary) I avoid any retouching, and I'm really not experienced to do so. I've taken slides for 30+ years, and I try to take digital images as authentic as possible, just like "enhanced" slides. --Smial (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Smial. The diagonal is a bit strange, ~~but I Support, anyway.~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, on reflection, the strange effect of the diagonal prevents me from considering this one of the very best photos on the site. So I've annulled my support vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WClarke 04:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I respect that Smial doesn't want to mess with the image, but the background shapes stabbing him is too unfortunate for a support from me. If an object is growing out of someone's head, one would shift the camera. In a case like this where the background is almost black anyway, I would "darken" (--> remove) these shapes without second thoughts. – Lucas ^T 12:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 16:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Golden Bosnian Lily, you are required to state a reason for opposing, only support votes are allowed without comment. – Lucas ^T 14:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like this picture (person), better not going into details... --Karelj (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not liking a person seems to me like an improper basis for opposing a feature for a photo of him. What does everyone think about this? Should a vote on this basis be annulled, as not about the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ikan. Karelj, please provide an argument against this as a photograph, opposing for personal reasons or just hinting at them is not valid in my opinion. – Lucas ^T 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The personal feeling about image is (in my opinion) the first point for image judgement. If I like it, I shall start to look on its technical quality and other criterion. If not, I will vote against. (I had simlar discussion about image File:John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.jpg), where I gave the same arguments. I believe, that we give our votes as human beings, not as robots looking for only technical parameters of image. In opposite case, the choise of featured pictures could be really done by some sophisticated Bot without peoples participation. --Karelj (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karelj, I strongly agree that the personal feeling towards an image is important, but what you did is use your opinion about a person as the sole point of your critique of a photo of said person. In your logic even a phenomenal image of that person would need to be rejected. Isn't that hugely unfair against the photographer and backwards? We critique photographs at FPC, on technical and emotional merit, but please not people. – Lucas ^T 17:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think, that it is better to say, that I do not like the object of image (no matter, if it is person, animal, thing, fish... anything). Just after first look at this photo I feel - this should not be a FP. I do not want, picture like that will be some day on homepage of Commons and I will not be ashamed as one of Commons authors.--Karelj (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Echt judasoor (Auricularia auricula-judae, synoniem, Hirneola auricula-judae). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Fungi # Auricularia auricula-judae # Family: Auriculariaceae.
Info real Auricularia auricula-judae (Auricularia auricula-judae, synonym, Hirneola auricula-judae). Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great but please remove the dust spot. Thanks! --21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Support - I don't see a dust spot. Clean lines, nice placement of the tree ears within the picture frame, interesting shapes, good light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Photographer has left a note on the file page... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it now. Very light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. spot removed. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not only is the bottom branch somewhat distracting, it is also rather noisy, and the edges of the branches sort of look weird and overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The dead narrow branch in dissolution.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel + no wow. lNeverCry 07:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu - Bellota de encina 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great esp. at full screen! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There may be something that I'm missing, because while I like the acorn, the frosty leaves that are clear and the light, the composition isn't working for me that much, I think partly because so many of the leaves blend into this resplendent light to such an extent, but maybe more so because of the nature of the arabesque created by the clearer leaves. I think I'd enjoy the composition more if there were more space under the bottom leaves on the left, or at least if they weren't cut off, but of course I don't know what shapes are under them. I'm inclined to respect whatever consensus develops but so far don't feel impelled to vote for this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perky little acorn perfectly placed in the photo, one of those pics that makes me happy to see. :) --cart-Talk 23:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 03:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the juxtapositions of seasonal images this creates: the hoarfrost on the green leaves (apparently the holm oak is a broadleaf evergreen, just like the mountain laurel so common in the higher-elevation woods I hike in over here) with the plucky little acorn cart noted suggesting fall. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful ! Olivier LPB (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Ice

File:Katscha February 2017 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 19:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Award-winning contemporary residential development Katscha in the historic industrial district in Norrköping, Sweden. Architects: Ingrid Reppen and Kai Wartiainen. The building was awarded the MIPIM Awards 2016 for best residential development. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. – Lucas ^T 19:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't love the unsharp railing in the near right corner, but that's a very minor element in an excellent photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, you do this light thing so well! And we are once more peeping into people's apartments, but this is thankfully mostly living rooms and kitchens with only 2½ men visible. Can't help wondering how much the top floor apartment here would cost... --cart-Talk 19:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classy and I don't find it intrusive like the apartment block we had. Charles (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Although the top crop is maybe a little tight. --Code (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I agree about the crop. Charles (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ArildV: The EXIF says 50mm while you added it to the category "Taken with Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D". Could you please clarify that? --Code (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Code: As mention in the images description is the exif information wrong (aperture and focal length). Laowa works basically like a Non-CPU lens on Nikon and you have to tell the camera the aperture and focal length of the lens. I was using a old Nikon Nikkor 50mm/1.8 AI-S the same evening and forget to change settings in the camera. --ArildV (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually I do like the partly unsharp railing. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- because it adds another interesting visual aspect to the composition. Lines are generally an important factor here. The railing helps lead my eyes diagonally to the more central elements of the image, while the blurred part as such provides some depth, i.e. it hints at the actual threedimensionality of the two dimensional representation of reality that every photograph necessarily is... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting, detailed reply. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid work! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to the top crop being a little too tight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 81.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 21:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Overview of the courtyard of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran. The mosque, located in the center of the city, was built in the late 18th century by master-mimar Ustad Haj Sa'ban-ali. The mosque consists of two large iwans, one in front of the mihrab and the other by the entrance and the courtyard in the middle. All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be better photographed with the sun on the main facade. ~~Small dust spot noted.~~ Charles (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles: new version with slightly brightened shadows and dust spot removed Poc o² 08:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending any resolution of the noted door that might be made vertical. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case: fixed Poc o² 08:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 07:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not noticing any dust spots, but I'm sure they'll get taken care of, and I think it's a great photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the shadow is gone. --cart-Talk 12:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think you're in someone else's picture too. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:First NASA ISINGLASS rocket launch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 02:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Pine - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 02:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 02:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty small, but at full size, it looks enchanted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 19:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the subject special enough to look past the small size. – Lucas ^T 05:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info This is a renomination using a (less tight) crop of the the original file processed by The Photographer, hopefully without the defects of the previous version. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this quite an impressive closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the sharpness and background are all fine, but my previous reason for opposing is still there: "I would have liked to see a bit more of the bird's neck. Now it looks as if it is striving to keep its head above the bottom line of the photo. With such a heavy beak, almost (vertical) centering the eye is not enough, the centre of gravity of the subject is too low." --cart-Talk 11:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this crop is actually worse than the original one. It introduced additional space at the top and right, but what is missing is some en:Lead room at the bottom and left. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose So I've looked at many bird FPs to judge how this one stacks up. My strongest argument so far is that it crops out too much on the bottom while the headroom is not containing much information about the environment the bird is in (grass? green mud? Zoo?). Comparing with FPs of birds with blurred background, most of them at least have more bird to look at in them, but to be fair some are in fact very similar in composition. Going along is that the lighting is good but IMO not adding any excitement, the whole image looks a bit grey and unprocessed (the file history shows that it originates from a OOC RAW, and the subsequent versions never added saturation), so if this would be improved together with the composition I would be willing to reconsider. I often read that FP needs wow and I believe FPs should showcase both excellent photography and subjects. The subject has potential, but I can't find enough aspects of good photography, it's just a unprocessed telephoto shot under diffuse light with green background. – Lucas ^T 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Lucas and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 17:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 52-55 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Panoramic view of the city of Tbilisi, capital of Georgia from Narikala. Created & uploaded by Poc o² - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course, and thanks for the nom, Kenny! Poc o² 17:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Is this a nearly 360-degree panorama, or do you have the good fortune to bookend a regular panorama with a tower on one side and a fort(?) on the other? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my picture but if memory serves me well it should be just a hair over 180 degeres, taken from a bastion on the fortress wall? Def not more than 200. KennyOMG (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the coordinates to make it more clear. It's indeed a half panorama of about 180 degrees. Poc o² 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice colors but I find the deep shadows on the sides a little disturbing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 17:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 19:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Naghsh-e rostam, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 20-24 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 08:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Panoramic view of the ancient Naqsh-e Rustam necropolis located about 12 km northwest of Persepolis, in Fars Province, Iran. The site includes rock reliefs of Achaemenid and Sassanid periods, 4 tombs of Achaemenid kings and a Cube of Zoroaster (far left). The reliefs are the oldest elements (the oldest one from 1000 BC) of Elamite origin. The tombs were carved out of the rock and belong (left to right) to Darius II (c. 423-404 BC), Artaxerxes I (c. 465-424 BC), Darius I (c. 522-486 BC) and Xerxes I (c. 486-465 BC). The Cube of Zoroaster belongs to the Achaemenid era (5th century BC) and its purpose is still unclear. Poc o² 13:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there is an existing FP: File:20101229 Naqsh e Rostam Shiraz Iran more Panoramic.jpg by another photographer six years earlier. This nomination has more detail/resolution but the rightmost door (?) is in shadow and has scaffolding. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, and both are clearly FPs to my eyes and mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support since this has way more detail than the prev FP. It could also serve as sort of time-line for the site. I have been corrected before when objecting to multiple FPs of the same scene and adjusted accordingly, since there is some merit in having some of them. --cart-Talk 12:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Kasir! Poc o² 13:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We were there in 1977. Love it. --Schnobby (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Slush on window in three lights.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 12:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info I like these kind of "abstracts" that are not really abstracts once you realize what has been photographed. All by me. -- cart-Talk 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A nice triptych - I like triptychs. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice triptych - I also like triptychs. Especially cart's triptychs. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no strong strong feelings pro or contra triptychs, but I like the word "triptych". And this triptych. --El Grafo (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just like El Grafo's reason for supporting. Also triptych. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's pretty interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and an excellent idea! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way each of these has something different to offer at full-res: the sort of relief look in the day; the blurs where the slush decided to melt in the dusk and the little bits of blue from some other lights (?) in the distance in the night image. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice example for the results that you can get without big travelling, just by looking at the details of existence. --PtrQs (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BalnearioAlfonsina-LaPerlaMDP-feb2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:23:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Balneario Alfonsina, La Perla, Mar del Plata, Argentina

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I enjoy looking at this. There's a nice counterpoint between the - what do they call those? tents? - in the foreground and middleground and the buildings in the further middleground and background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is too flat for me. Would be better to take early morning or late afternoon. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, the gilded terrors of mass tourism --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support King is right about the lighting but I find the sea of tents irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 18:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Red Dragonlets (Erythrodiplax fusca) in Botanical Garden of São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by -- The Photographer 22:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is borderline QI and well short of FP standard for a dragonfly. Abdomen must all be in focus. Needs a crop, but then the file would be quite small. Lighting is not good. Charles (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was a union technique of join 25 images to remove the noise. IMHO I can't get more size and quality because lens. I don't know why ask for more size if the camera can't give more and the fp requeriment size is only 2 mp. I am in process to buy a D7200, however, I can't understand where we are going asking for more and more size and forcing to the photographer community to get a quality imposible without a last line dslr machine. Thanks for your commet, I am open too to receive some recommendations and not only criticism to improve my quality. --The Photographer 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was harsh in my choice of words. There are quite a few 'how to' guides online for dragonflies, the most important of which is to know that they will return to the same perch so you can be ready with the right light, nice bokeh, appropriate camera settings and a good stance so you can use slowish shutter speed. I try to use a monopod, but tripod even better. Jee takes excellent images using flash, but I'm not keen. Charles (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need tell sorry, you are a especialized photographer in this area. My comment was more a general comment, also, It was a bit frustrating trying to get clear pictures yes, however it's not somethig personal with your comment. I respect your comment a lot, perhaps in the process of write my comment I did it wrong and look like a complaint comment, however, it is more a general size critique that many others have commented here, excessive fanaticism for super size images. --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles and his knowledge and experience in this kind of photography. Daniel Case (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to know what Jee thinks about the focus issue with the tail. I think the exact species is not identified on page so that may be an issue too wrt FP status. Compare File:Red faced dragonlet (Erythrodiplax fusca) male.JPG for similar species. The insect seems rather over-saturated red, though that might be the correct lighting, it might also be a sign the image has been overcooked for saturation. Wrt the size, I don't think Charles was suggesting that there is an issue with getting FP from your 12MP camera, just that cropping does rapidly reduce file size and so good technique is required to get close-up photos of insects. [You've been here long enough to know that 2MP is a minimum necessary but not sufficient requirement -- being above 2MP is no guarantee of acceptance and in fact I'd be interested if we have much recent promotions below 5MP] Anyway, I disagree the image needs cropped, and the lovely smooth background is a feature of the photo. Not all our insect photos need to be close crops, and I think sometimes we neglect to find beauty outside of the obvious subject. I would be interested to know more about the technique mentioned about 25 frames. Was this taken on a tripod? Surely the branch and insect were moving. So how can one align 25 frames in that circumstance? -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on identification

1. We need to identify the species first. Posting at Dragonflies & Damselflies may helps. There are a lot of species in this genus. 2. It seems in backlit; thorax and tip of abdomen in shadows. 3. The red seems OK for me. 4. Both, tight framing and giving some room around the subject is the photographer's choice. This too works. J e e 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin and Jk, thanks for your review. The images was taken using tripod and I used your ISO removal technique joining each image in photoshop with 100/25 % of opacity for each layer. About the color I applied a bit color saturation and for your comment it was too strong. Finally, With respect to species identification, I did a personal investigation and it can be a Erythrodiplax fusca, however, I have not been able to contact an expert for this identification --The Photographer 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, likely a mature male E. fusca as you can see the remains of the blue pruinescence on the abdomen. I think your Photoshop technique (new to me!) is probably losing too much definition in the hairs Charles (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, the technique was talked about here (at least that's where it started) if you are interested. The loss of def on the hairs is probably more due to movement since the trick is used to reveal smaller objects. --cart-Talk 12:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This technique is the best noise reduction technique that I know, basically a miracle --The Photographer 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I remember. My Canon 70D has a low light setting that does this in Camera, but I've never got it to work properly. I can't imagine many days in the field where you wouldn't get degradation of sharpness of odonata hairs. I'll nominate a traditional image for comparison. Charles (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benoît Guillon confirmed that this is Erythrodiplax fusca. J e e 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: Thanks for help me in the identification procedure. BTW, @Colin: I rollbacked any vibrance/saturation to the original image (now it has the original colors without any change) and I added some sharpening in the abdomen @Charlesjsharp: . --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great lighting, bokeh and vibrant colors. Yes, the tail is a bit soft, but I rather look at this picture than a sharp one with boring light and colors. – Lucas ^T 19:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this support vote very very surprising. Charles (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on Lucas' support vote

Charles, good to know I surprised you. People do react very differently to images. I expressed my real feelings when viewing the image, and these might be inconsistent with my other votes. It's fine by me if the image does not get featured because of all the reasons in the lengthy discussion above, I don't want to downplay those at all, but I wanted to share my view that I just enjoy the image as it is. – Lucas ^T 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But we should be wary of a quirky support vote that might be seen as undermining the FP process. Naturally you can enjoy the image. Charles (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, in what way do you think my vote would undermine the FP process? I'm genuinely curious, I strive to be a better voter. I stated my reasons as well as you stated yours to oppose—in fact a support vote doesn't even require any comment to begin with. FP is about great images people enjoy looking at, and while your criticism is valid, I strongly feel that my support is as valid and far from undermining anything. – Lucas ^T 13:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to explain was that for certain types of image - panoramas is another good example - there are many FPCs and standards are established and people vote accordingly. The same applies with wildlife. While a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct, I think the FPC process relies on a regular voter respecting established FPC standards. For insect images like this it saves a lot of time if images are submitted to QI first. Charles (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Lucas. F*ck established standards and hooray for images that deliver emotion. FPC is about great images, not great pixels. Unlike QI, at FP we try to balance technical merit with artistic merit. Yes a boring insect photo would demand head-to-tail sharpness. This isn't a boring insect photo. -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on Colin's support vote

Comment If you are bored by insect photos, just don't vote on them. Charles (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get bored by insect photos nor by boring photos; I'm capable of appreciating their other merits and supporting them. There is a place on Commons for unexciting photos that are of such high technical excellence that they are "among our finest". Not every photo has to be artistically outstanding, beautiful, or the subject emotionally moving. A key difference between QI and FP is that technical merit is not the only factor. For example, my own File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg and File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg are artistically boring photos. Their unique high viewpoints combined with sharp detail in very high resolution makes them educationally highly valuable photos of two of the more important towers in London, and their technical standard lifts them to be among our finest. There is a role for "established standards" and "expert opinion" wrt the technical standards and aspects of our images. People familiar with genres of photography can highlight what is important and not important to get right technically. But anyone can have an opinion on whether an image is a great image. Please don't dismiss that as "newcomer's instinct". -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Charles, don't you think we should make FPC hospitable to newcomers? Each person has only one vote. If a new participant votes differently from a bunch of regulars, their opinion won't carry the day, but it might be interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Absolutely. When I said "a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct", I didn't imply that was wrong, but if he/she then found out that their vote was, say, the only one in favour, then the comments of others should inform subsequent votes. We all freely vote on images where we don't understand the technical challenges or quality benchmarks - a 360 deg panorama is one example. I loved one of a church interior some days ago, but had there been negative comments from people who do understand, I would have looked more closely next time. Charles (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply. However, you referred to "undermining the FP process" above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Charles was being both patronising and offensive to Lucas. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin is out of order as he was in writing "F*ck established standards". I posted that "we should be wary of a quirky support vote that might be seen as undermining the FP process." That referred to Lucas' vote and is neither patronising nor offensive. Charles (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas asked you why you felt his quirky vote was undermining the FP process. And you replied he was a beginner voting on instinct, ignorant of the established standards that he should learn to respect. That's patronising and offensive. And note that QI is not a training ground for FP and nor does The Photographer need lessons from you on what is appropriate to nominate at FP: he was nominating images at FP while you were still in short trousers. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your gratuitous rudeness is depressing. Your ability to read, however, may be excusable. I said "While a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct, I think the FPC process relies on a regular voter respecting established FPC standards". Lucas is a regular voter. And, by the way, I'm rather concerned that you know when I stopped wearing short trousers. Charles (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, repeating your patronising remarks doesn't make them less so. For the benefit of non-English speakers, unfamiliar with the phrase, the "while you were still in short trousers" is a British idiom that refers to someone still being in infant school, with the implication that the other person has vastly greater experience. Charles started nominating at FP in 2014 whereas The Photographer began in 2007. So Charles' advice on using QI first is just more patronising, and depresses me that anyone would think the pixel peeping QI is a fundamental for FP. It is precisely that this is not QI that enables us to enjoy and celebrate an image -- QI is full of dull an unexciting photos. You are clearly beeing snooty towards both Lucas and The Photographer. Aparently us non-experts can "enjoy" a photo but are not allowed to support it lest our quirky opinions undermine the process. What rot. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 18:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert Kuvezin 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 19:09:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Tuvan guitarist and throat singer Albert Kuvezin. Created by Dmitry Rozhkov - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ISO noise for FPC, try to reproccess the RAW if you have it Ezarateesteban 22:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unsharp, and not enough separation between the black shirt and the black background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, per Ezarate; also, even in its absence I'd be distracted by that microphone stand on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: three days without participation and three opposes, very noise also for FP Ezarateesteban 22:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 12:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7684.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 16:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Praying Jew at Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many distracting elements in the composition that look not clear to me --The Photographer 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose - This is a great photo of a man, but I have to agree with The Photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 17:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas ^T 05:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I have noticed the chairs and other objects. They are all in the shade. The praying Jew has retreated into a quiet zone, he is not directly on the wall. I wanted to show that with the picture. Sorry for Google translation. --Ralf Roleček 22:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common blue damselfly (Enallagma cyathigerum) immature male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 14:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's great that you resolved the wings and we can see so many of the hairs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I applied a noise reduction, however, I rollbacked myself and if it's ok for you, you could keep this version on top in the history. --The Photographer 14:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Great job. Your version is on top now. Charles (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Forested hills in Lysekil in fog - B&W.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info The ridges of the hills in Bohuslän can produce some striking scenery at times. These are the hills between two fjords, geological formations that are the south part of the landscape more associated with Norway. The color version was not very different from this B&W, so converting it was only natural. All by me -- cart-Talk 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I Support the nomination. I'm undecided on whether I like the B&W or color version better, but I think that's only because the color version has more light in the middleground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image for the "walls of a psychiatrist's office" category. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rats! I should not have given up my copyright for this, psychiatrics usually do very well and I could have charged a bundle for it. ;) --cart-Talk 19:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would have preferred the color version for the blue tint, but grayscale (for most images B&W is a misnomer) works too. – Lucas ^T 16:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kitsch. --Karelj (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Kitsch in what way? By the way, have you ever supported any woman's nomination, not to put too fine a point on the question? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make this into a gender issue, shall we. I don't think my gender has anything to do with this and it should certainly not be taken into account when someone vote on my photos. There are some users who are more blunt/rude than others, I guess we have to live with that. --cart-Talk 08:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your wishes, and I will not mind if you delete this subthread, but we can leave everyone to their own suspicions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On the one hand, I like to support this one because I like these graduated layers of grey tones, on the other hand it seems too noisy or grained to me (although I know it's an effect of the fog). --Basotxerri (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally valid point. I know, it's a bitch, you want the effect the fog provides but you don't want the fog effect, and making more NR will only lose detail. It's a no-win situation... --cart-Talk 17:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry kitsch, nothing featuterable for me. No wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Front view of the Nike of Samothrace.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 22:14:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle doesn't work for me I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is the framing so slightly off-center? – Lucas ^T 10:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this angle diminishes the statue and not in a good way. Doing a perspective correction using the wall behind it as ref makes it a bit better but not enough though. --cart-Talk 14:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prise de la ville et de la citadelle de Gand en six jours - Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 22:56:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't been to Versailles since the early 90s. Is that how the painting looks, or should it be a bit more saturated? I ask this merely as a question, without implying anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment surely they have been restored,but i don't know when. Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'll live with this photo for a while and see if I get any wow from it later. So far, parts of the painting seem undersaturated and a bit glary to me, and while that may indeed be how it looked, it's not wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It feels weird to me because there are geometric hints that the camera position is off-center – Lucas ^T 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casa histórica de Tabatabaeis, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 65.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 11:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Interior courtyard of the Tabātabāei House, a historic house in Kashan, Iran. The house was built in the early 1880s by Ustad Ali Maryam, architect of the Borujerdis House and has 40 rooms, 4 courtyards, 4 basements and 3 windwards spread over a surface of almost 5,000 square metres (54,000 sq ft). All by me, Poc o² 11:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 11:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful scene, but the wire against the sky is unfitting thematically, as there are no other modern objects around. I'd support without it. – Lucas ^T 13:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The wire doesn't spoil anything for me: It's above the house and doesn't block anything. I wouldn't like for it to be removed, because another viewer at the scene would see it, too. That's modern life. I accept things for what they are more readily than many of the rest of the FPC habitue(e)s. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lucas, Ikan, Daniel: as I didn't consider that wire a relevant element of the subject I've cloned it out. I've also adjusted the crop and curves a bit. Poc o² 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Support now. – Lucas ^T 19:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- Sahand Ace 09:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Support Very interesting shapes --A.Savin 21:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Gnosis (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Red-whiskered-bulbul-from-kottayam-kerala-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2017 at 07:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by User:deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not near to QI standard. Has been placed in English Wikipedia article even though it is not best image on Commons. Charles (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your vote. If you have an issue with the image in English Wikipedia article you are always free to place a better one or revert the edit. The previous image there, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Red-Whiskered_Bulbul-1.jpg was of lesser resolution and that was the reason why i put the current image. I hope you are not ignorant of how Wikipedia works. thanks Deepugn (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about other photos of the bird species

Higher resolution does not equal higher quality. And after over 3,200 edits on English Wikipedia and 18,000 contributions to Commons I do actually understand a little about how it works. Charles (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, To make it clear, I don't have a problem in using or not using an image photographed by me. As Colin mentioned, my intention was only to improve the article in my capacity, as I have previously explained the reason for replacing the current image. Deepugn (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, your comment "Higher resolution does not equal higher quality." is in response to the link to a 0.29MP image that this 5.5MP image replaced on Wikipedia. Are you seriously suggesting that this image is inferior to that one, which also has an artificial magenta background? If not, would you accept that Deepugn improved Wikipedia by taking and inserting a higher quality photo than Wikipedia was currently displaying? If you think there is a better image to illustrate the Wikipedia article already on Commons, would you please indicate which one that is, and then insert it in the article. You claim to know of a better image, which would take 10s to insert into the article, yet would rather spend that time arguing and boasting about your edit count? As for QI standard, I think this is a perfectly usable photo of the bird in habitat, so once again wonder if that forum has got its values/purpose rather confused. -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respond, @Colin: to your ill-judged rant. I was not arguing or boasting. I was replying to an specific accusation of ignorance. Deepugn did not improve Wikipedia. His image is nowhere near the best image on Commons: File:Red whiskerd bulbul David Raju.jpg, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus).jpg, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul at Porvorim.JPG, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul-web.jpg, even File:Birdpic.jpg are all better. You go ahead and choose your favourite. Charles (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, you don't answer the question because the answer is embarassing to you. Are you seriously suggestion that the previous image was superior to Deepugn's replacement? Please, answer this. I think then you will have to admit that Deepugn did improve Wikipedia. He took a better image and he improved the page with it. Now, you or anyone else may wish to spend time to find an even better image and insert that. And if you do (rather than criticising him here) then you are improving Wikipedia. But your comments here imply Deepung has done something wrong. He hasn't. He may not have been as thorough in locating the best possible image as you might wish, but this is a volunteer project and we all have a tendency to prefer our own works. As for your suggested better images, two do not show the red feathers at the bottom of the body, which I would consider a key feature, one has been oversharpened, with artefacts. And as for File:Birdpic.jpg ... you are having a joke are you not? Terrible composition, cropped tail, noisy compact-camera garbage quality. Wikipedia is about making one's own little contribution that makes it a step better. Face it: your original comments were "ill judged" and you should apologise to Deepung for making any suggestion he did not improve Wikipedia. And if you want to hold your head up as a reviewer, then you can retract your suggestion that File:Birdpic.jpg is better. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. File:Red-Whiskered Bulbul-1.jpg was better to illustrate the article than this FPC. I personally do prefer File:Birdpic.jpg to this FPC, however dreadful the camera used. As Ikan says below '"rguably more useful as a small thumbnail of a red-whiskered bulbul". Charles (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think you are just trolling now. Shame on you Charles. -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shame on you too Colin for questioning my integrity. Charles (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the position where the photo is used, the other photo might be superior. To be clear, it's far inferior to this one as a photo; however, it is arguably more useful as a small thumbnail of a red-whiskered bulbul. But that's something best discussed at w:Talk:Red-whiskered bulbul. Here, we are judging this photo as a photo, not a Wikipedia thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan The other photo has an artificial magenta background, which is never desirable, doesn't show the feet, nor the tail nor is the red patch at its bottom clearly visible. On Wikipedia, my thumbnail size is 300px, which is rendered on my high DPI screen using a 600px image, which that image (at 506px wide) is not large enough to do. High DPI screens are becoming more and more popular both on the desktop and mobile devices, so our old concept of "thumbnail" size is obsolete. I think that for many of our animal photos, there is too much concern on eliminating the background. There are times where that is a desirable style of photography, but also times where "animal in habitat" is absolutely appropriate and to be appreciated in its own different way. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that "animal in habitat" is a very useful type of photo. When "thumbnail size" becomes obsolete, maybe the category of "Valued Images" should be eliminated. If not, it should certainly be drastically reimagined, because I've been judging photos at VIC almost solely on the basis of what is most useful at thumbnail size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at thumbnail size only works if there is only one image in the category. If the VI scope takes you to a gallery, you should always check the category as not all competing images will be in the gallery. Charles (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I look at all relevant images in the category. I guess that's the same as the gallery? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too many distracting elements for viewer to easily focus on the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, why don't you think this is even close to QI? I think this would pass QIC unless it got into CR and too many people voted that the background was too distracting. The bird is clear, even where not fully sharp, from the tip of its crown to the tip of its tail. I don't feel impelled to vote for this as an FP, and I would say it is not an FP, but I only mildly Oppose and don't really understand why you have such a very low opinion of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the bird is in focus, Ikan. Charles (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely in focus at full size, no. But on the other hand, the tail is a lot clearer than in many QI photos. I would have agreed if you had said it's not at FP level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a very nice photo of the bird, but since we have so many highly skilled bird photographers here, the bar for an FP bird photo is rather high. This is not quite up to that level. However, instead of bickering about if this is a QI or not here, I've nominated it for QI and we'll see how that goes on that page instead. --cart-Talk 11:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 17:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dlhe diely panorama zo starych gruntov.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 18:23:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Panorama of Dlhé diely quarter in Bratislava from the Staré grunty street, July 2008. To this day panel buildings continue to dominate the cityscapes of many former eastern bloc countries, evidenced even by the large number of enwp articles on the same subject (Czech/Slovakian: Panelák, German: Plattenbau, Hungarian: Panelház, Mongolian: Ugsarmal bair, Romanian: Systematization, Russian: Khrushchyovka). It might not be a pretty sight but is a very good representation of reality outside the historical areas. Created & uploaded by Teslaton - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality and execution, but no wow for me I'm afraid. I see nothing that elevates this image enough above any other panorama that is just technically flawless. The lighting is not interesting enough as well. There's nothing to guide the viewer, nothing striking to look at in my opinion. – Lucas ^T 18:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lucasbosch, Sorry Olivier LPB (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 07:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian Parliament at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 16:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Parliament of Canada (Centre Block) at night. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please fix the converging lines making it look tilted backwards. I personally despise the need to correct them every goddam time when shooting architecture, especially in extreme cases, but when they are so slight the illusion is not pretty. – Lucas ^T 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need verticals fix --The Photographer 16:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Verticals corrected -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, it now look better!, however, a small sugestion and I can't underestand and I need to know if it was the naturals colors because it look too green. If it was the natural colors I will change my vote to support. --The Photographer 13:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: I fixed a green tint, but I think it will be a problem to get natural colors due to artificial light. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing this with other photos of the parliament at night, I seems yours is too yellow. Do you have any good arguments for this? It does look like wrong WB and/or oversaturated if you ask me. – Lucas ^T 21:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: I uploaded version with corrected WB. But as far as I can remember, the light bulbs near parliament had a warm yellowish tint. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although I would like to know about the WB issues. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Don't like the overexposed lights and the noise. -- -donald- (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is an ok photo, but the colors make it look sickly, like an old haunted house or something, and the overdone perspective correction is not helping (the sides are now leaning out instead of in, they should be straight). --cart-Talk 12:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others' objections, especially cart. I saw this building last summer. It's magnificent and memorable. I don't think this photo does justice to it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of fixed Sergey, I've fix a version of this with a WB based on some of the white objects (a taxi, some signs) in the photo. I also nudged the spectrum from violet to more blue and fixed the verticals. The version is in my dropbox, feel free to use it any way you like if you want to (as inspiration or just to download). Don't forget to 'ping' the voters if you decide to do this radical change to the photo. --cart-Talk 10:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the postprocessing on the building to be overcontrasty and slightly unrealistic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Essaouira Atlantic.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 16:11:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Morocco, Essaouira. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is making me feel like flying with the birds along the shore, something not many images are able to do. The warm light, the waves, rocks and the village are all great elements that taken together make this truly special. Congratulations. – Lucas ^T 16:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors and composition to be sure, but there's a fair amount of noise in the sea and rocks, the lighter buildings in the city are a little overexposed, and those near the right edge are visibly leaning in that direction. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, I'm curious on your opinion about noise. Even the best cameras have inherent noise at base ISO, shadows contain even more and post processing noise reduction can degrade details. Lighting can be challenging and just requiring higher ISOs or raising shadows because of the limited dynamic range of the camera. I agree that FPs should have best possible quality, but there are technical and practical limits. Would you prefer noise free images with lost details over ones with visible noise? Just curious. – Lucas ^T 18:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: I know other people ding me about being too sensitive about this, but I'm not the only one. We have had similar pictures to this nominated here without as much noise, is all I'm saying. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The noise bothers me, too, in one place in particular: The closer waves. To me, the noise smudges and distorts the details of the waves. I'd like to see what this photo looks like with some noise reduction in the water. I love how this photo completely teems with shore birds flying in the sky near and far, as opposed to the photos which on QI get demands to remove bird life from the air. I accept the motion blur from flight, but I'd like to see the waves more nearly as they actually looked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me feel like I'm flying with the birds. I don't think pixel peeping is helpful for this kind of subject - if it was architecture or something I'd be more picky. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Thennicke --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the blurred bird flying away in the foreground. Charles (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, could you please make a note where it is? I can't find any significantly blurred bird. – Lucas ^T 17:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't? That explains the support vote. Now I'm really worried about your eyesight. Charles (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My eyesight is fine, I just assumed you meant a bird with much more motion blur. – Lucas ^T 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. The birds are not the subject. --Selbymay (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 07:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ant-in-ixora-coccinea-flower-kottayam-kerala.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 18:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing is sharp. Not a QI, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan – Lucas ^T 20:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely colors and perhaps artistic, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: three opposes and no participiation in 5 days – Lucas ^T 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keri island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 12:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Kruusamägi (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent composition, I love the rocks there and the posible river or beach close, however, f/10 was not enough --The Photographer 12:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Sorry, try again, too unsharp (Do you process from RAW or is a jpg direct from camera)? --Ezarateesteban 13:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Neutral better but not FP by now Ezarateesteban 01:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per The Photographer and Ezarate. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose per The Photographer. This is a very attractive photo at thumbnail size, and it still looks good despite some noticeable unsharpness at full size on my laptop, but it is really unsharp at full size. Yes, the size is quite large, but the fact that the stones start getting clearly unsharp so close to the bottom of the picture frame merely at full screen size on my laptop impels me to consider this photo not to be one of the best on the site. I would be very happy to reconsider if you can sharpen the photo without damaging anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I gave it a try and did some slight sharpening, see the file history. I tried to revert it back to wait on approval by the uploader, but I wasn't able to ("The edit appears to have already been undone."). – Lucas ^T 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! But I'm still reluctant to support. I will consider whether a "neutral" vote is warranted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezarate, Daniel Case: I sharpened it selectively, please reevaluate your votes, thanks. – Lucas ^T 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. In such situations where maximum DOF is wanted, you can do a focus stack by shooting a close and a far focused image (or some more in between) and blend them together later. – Lucas ^T 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, I did some sharpening, but still would prefer to be done from RAW for better quality. So

Neutral for now. – Lucas ^T 21:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I shoot this image only as jpg. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have your reasons for sticking with JPG, I would recommend to change to RAW if you haven't already. It's well worth the extra hassle. – Lucas ^T 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO focus problem is not something that rebuild from RAW could fix. The problem was the select a insufficient deep of field in the image. My suggestion is to 1) make another picture with f/16 using a tripod (my first recomendation) or 2) without tripod, however, a combination of three images, one focusing the house, another focusing half the ground and the third focusing on the rocks that are in the foreground, then join this with Photoshop or Gimp using layers for each image. --The Photographer 11:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Górski Karabach, Klasztor Gandzasar (14).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 11:48:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Halavar - uploaded by Halavar - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The church has been photographed too closely. Thus not all of it is in focus and the wide-angle perspective unnatural. It may not be possible to photograph this church well from futher back, so this may still be a VI/QI, but it isn't as good as our finest church photos. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, sorry. --cart-Talk 13:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin's point. --Gnosis (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also find the upper reaches of the church a little soft for FP, and I think the upper crop is too close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose everything else works but the understandable attempt to correct perspective left it distorted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walking dog.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 03:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Face is out of focus. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's no powerful emotion or amazing form that compensates for the motion blur, though the dog is cute. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, very regretfully. I really like the composition and the front leg angles but the out of focus face breaks the connection of the viewer to the dog. The dog is already looking the other way so I really need the focus there. – Lucas ^T 09:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO the dog should be sharp. --XRay ^talk 11:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really curious, would it be possible to upload an uncropped version? -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bullfighting in aguascalientes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 04:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on ethical grounds, in the 21st century we don't need to glorify a barbaric "tradition" of animal cruelty for human entertainment - regardless of what Spaniards think they are wrong. Strictly speaking of the technical qualities of the image, it's kind of dull. Even with the panning the head of the bull (appears to be the target) is not sharp enough to contrast with the other parts and makes it look like a static image shot with low shutter (ie camera shake). The pose of the matador, while might be iconic "matador-pose" or something, doesn't add any dynamic either. -- KennyOMG (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is too much blurred – Lucas ^T 07:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor quality. Composition is fine. I know the Spanish conquered Mexico, but this is not a Spanish bullfight. Charles (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does Spain having conquered Mexico has to do with this? This is not about that.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it was obvious that I was commenting on KennyOMG's criticism of Spain. Charles (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others' objection to the picture quality. I think it's quite a bad idea to oppose pictures of bullfighting on moral grounds. Regardless of whether you support or oppose it, showing it for what it is has an intrinsic value. However, the same criteria of composition and quality that are relevant to all other photos are relevant to photos of bullfighting, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose simply because it's obvious even at thumbnail that this picture isn't even up to QI level. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that some are missing the point... For pixel counters yes, a bad photo, but that is not the point here... This is interesting reading #REDIRECT[[6]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about technical quality vs. artistic merit / impact

Usually at FPC we care about technical quality, photographic quality and subject itself (my interpretation of course, but also based on the guidelines). The above comments mean that the voters think the subject or photographic quality (e.g. composition) does not stand out enough to overcome the flawed technical quality. We do have a few FPs with sub-QI quality. – Lucas ^T 18:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anyone can vote the way they want for whatever reason, I have no problem with that. Whatever the reason, support or oppose, is a subjective choice. All I am saying is that good photography is not technique dependent, and to make it so diminishes the possibility of photography as a language, as a form of expression. I know how it is around here, been around long enough, and I keep disagreeing with the short sighted form of evaluating photography as to what constitutes a featurable picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Music is a language, too, but if I run all my notes together when they should be separately audible, my execution detracts from the emotion I've put into my performance. And can you really say this photo has the same impact as the one Lucas ~~nominated~~ supported above? Not only is the matador blurred in this one, but you can't see anyone's face. I don't really get how you judge the quality of a photo. Solely on how it makes you feel? If so, expect others to feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, anyone can vote whichever way they want, but this image is not about pixels, or sharpeness, or being able to see the face... it is about the content. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that only the image should be judged? Surely, you recognize that there are many different ways to shoot the same motif. So how do you judge different shots of a particular motif? And in this case, yes, not being able to see the faces is part of the content. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You shoot what you shoot when you shoot and how you shoot, and whatever comes out either works or not... There is no better example of this than Robert Capa´s work (and no, I do not compare to him). See this #REDIRECT[[7]] or this #REDIRECT[[8]]. The last image is one of the most reproduced images in the history of photography, yet around here it wouldn´t get a vote under the current practices. Good photography is not about pixels, sharpenes, etc., it is a combination of many elements and of course content and context. This nomination is not about strict image quality, is is about catching your eye (did it? It certainly generated quick agreement on the oppose side!) and hopefully to generate emotion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when Hustler Magazine came out with very graphic, picture perfect shots of female genitalia. They went way beyond normal practices. However, for as much detail that can be seen in Hustler´s pictures, they never climbed to the level of erotic art expressed even in Victoria´s Secrets catalogs... I think that a lot of people here are more Hustler inclined... lot of graphic, visible detail but no content. (and yes, even in Hustler style we could find erotism, but I think it is more smut than anything else, arousing, yes, erotic, no). --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can work youself up about the voting practices around here, and I can understand it, I really do. But in the end this is a place where people vote on photos to be put in a web gallery, not life and death. If you disagree with the measurements and priorities, then it would be best to not nominate and laugh at us for our narrow-mindedness. Fact is, many people count technical quality to be part of good photography, for good reasons. A blurred image just is less desireable than a sharp one, to most of us. If not, we all could stop bothering about shutter speed and focusing alltogether and just capture emotions. Sadly, this is not how most people choose to do it. – Lucas ^T 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we have better bullfight pictures that show the same things, like this for one. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lucas ^T I really don´t care too much how people vote anymore, except that it could be discouraging to photographers that work in another level and detrimental to the goal of compiling good photographic material. Like the saying goes, if you pay with peanuts the only ones attracted will be monkeys. Like Trump said, maybe the voting is done by a fat man sitting on a couch somewhere in New Jersey! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get what your criteria for a good (or great) photo are. Did this photo catch my eye? Sure, for a moment. Your other photo had a much stronger effect on me, because I saw the poor victim's face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poor quality. lNeverCry 23:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. -- KTC (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't understand all the discussions about moral here. A picture like this can be used just for condemning bull fighting just as well as for promoting it – that's up to viewer and/or the re-users in our sister projects. On a technical level, of course you can't expect the same quality from a carefully lit studio scene and a fast-paced action shot. So it's probably best judged against sports pictures (e.g. Commons:Featured_pictures/Sports), but even there it's far away from the usual FP level quality-wise. --El Grafo (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't agree more with all of your points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising support Interesting. I hear you, opposers, really I do! I still find the image captivating. It doesn't even pretent to be a perfectly sharp action photo - but to me it successfully evokes the gist of bullfighting, in a rather impressionist way of course. The fleeting drama, the brutatlity, the speed... Btw., I'd never oppose images on moral grounds. This would certainly undermine the power of photography in a way I can't condone. Morally. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, that's a really interesting way of looking at it! It doesn't really speak to me that way, but I can see where you're heading with this. If the effect was more pronopunced and looked more intentional, I could certainly see myself supporting it. Doesn't have to be as weird as this rodeo shot, but going a bit more towards that direction wouldn't hurt, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Poor quality! --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sometimes I think that if some of the criteria for evaluating photography around here (including my own), would condemn roquefort cheese for having fungi or swiss cheese for having holes... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

part 2 of the discussion about technical quality vs. other photographic qualities

Have you considered that, maybe, just maybe, these are not the best ever pictures shot at bullfights, regardless of how much you like them personally? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth no, I haven´t considered it because I know for sure they are not! But that is not the point... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point is you thought these two are FP worthy, others think they are not. It's up to you to consider whether the criticism has merit or not - apparently you're saying "lalala fp quality lalala unfair lalala", which is fine I guess, except it will not help you take better (bullfighting) pictures in the future. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I think them FP worthy, that´s why I nominated them... and I do question the way photographs are evaluated in general around here, always have, probably always will... Why? because I thinks it is flawed and limited. I think that after 45 years of doing photography I may have an insight or two... A lot of arguments used to demerit a lot of images here would be considered a joke in more serious photographic circles... My coments are meant to reflect, not to attack, but if the shoe fits.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really helpful if you could give us some guidelines you would have us use to judge photos, beyond whether they strike us when we look at them, which is a completely subjective criterion that you should expect people to differ on. However, if you are not capable of giving us such guidelines, that is your failing as a teacher. We don't have to agree with your guidelines, but so far, I haven't seen you give us any. Can you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best student learns despite having the worst teacher, and the worst student will not learn despite having the best teacher.... I believe that the best teacher many times is oneself... One must place oneself in a way that we can be aware of our strengths and shortcomings, and act accordingly. What I see is many people with new cameras thinking themselves photographers, and they are insofar as they can take pictures. But photography is much more than taking a picture; photography is about making photographs. This is a distinction that many people fail to acknowledge or see. I see a lot of people with fancy new cameras, armed with a computer and a photo editing program, the best, and think themselves experts. This is like the person who buys the best cooking utensils and think himself a chef, nothing further than the truth. As far as contributing here, I was the one that wrote the original criteria for evaluating photographs, and most of it still stands, although butchered a little, improved a little but that is ok, it is the nature of collaborative work. I taught photography for over 20 years, and believe me, I can spot a phony from afar... Now, so I do not tell you what is the truth, here is a little guideline from PPA (Professional Photographers of America) that are very helpful #REDIRECT[[9]]. I believe firmly on this project, but I also believe that the way business is conducted here discourages serious photographers from participating and thus limiting the possibilities of the project. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need lectures about how to learn despite bad teaching. A bad teacher almost ruined my career before it started by teaching me a posture and technique that resulted in a severe injury to both arms when I had no idea how to play any differently, and a great teacher saved it. And I was a much-beloved college professor for a couple of decades and a writing tutor who helped many clients get jobs, grants, fellowships, internships, post-doc appointments, etc., etc. I promise to carefully read the guidelines you linked and think about them all, although your remarks like "I can spot a phony from afar" are not conducive to learning. I assure you, if you pretend to accuse me in the post above: I am no phony and have never made any claims to expertise in photography. I do my best to judge what I see based not on ability as a photographer, as I have merely dabbled a little in photography, but simply as a viewer whose father taught him a lot about how to understand paintings and whose brother is among other things a professional-level photographer who was exhibited at a major American museum many moons ago. I never pretend that I have the knowledge, skill or experience that you or any of the other regulars here have, and I have learned a lot about photography by spending time on this site. You have the right to think that this means that I'm presumptuous to vote at FPC, QIC or VIC and shouldn't pass judgment on any photo, and I think you know what my counter-argument would be: Assure me that no-one but flutists gets to have an opinion on my performance on the flute and no-one but jazz composers gets to judge the quality of my jazz tunes, and I'll make that deal with you. So thank you for the link, which I promise to read through and consider, but I wish you could have a more pleasant attitude despite your frustration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek I really was not referring to you at all! I apologize deeply for this unintentional consequence of my criticism of the practices here. On the contrary, I see your participations as the most objective and level headed around. I am truly sorry. I am expressing years of frustration because I actually care for this project and see what I believe are practices that discourage participation. I have discussed this site with good photographer friends and they will not go near it because of the very things I mention. Donating images is not a small issue to some photographers, and recognition in this case is the only pay (you know how the ego works), so to donate work and then be subjected to flawed evaluation methodology is not a good thing to some. On another hand, I am well aware that there is a slight possibility that I am a jerk and that may turn people off, but I have to speak my mind even if that does not win me any friends. Best regards and please accept my apologies. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. And I feel bad if I have any role in discouraging great photographers from donating work to Commons. I will study those 12 Elements... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Ikan Kekek You hit it on the nail when you say how to understand paintings... It is the same with photography, you have to understand it, but understanding requires study, insight, cultural capital. I live inside a photography community and we many times discuss how the "new" photographers operate on a vacum with regards to photography itself, passing over the basic elements of technique, equipment understanding, history, tendencies, context, relevance, etc., and feel that because they have a fancy camera and are good with photoshop and are able to create different looking images that are the result of digital manipulation (and not the result of visualization) then they are hip and good and can dismiss the depth of the medium. I hear the newbies scoff at the usefullness of discipline and knowledge because you can always photoshop a bad picture. And believe me, in my view you are not the discouranging type, I really don´t have a problem with your evaluations, mine or others either way they go. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what you say is similar to complaints my father had about art schools where they don't teach the basics of drawing from the nude, perspective or traditional composition at all, feeling that since the art that sells is whatever conceptual bullshit is fashionable, it's a waste of time to ground them in the knowledge of every great thing that preceded them, starting from the cave paintings and going through the art of the various ancient civilizations (e.g., Egyptian, Assyrian, Cycladic, Classic Greek, Roman), etc. In an age with no consensus standards on even what is and is not art, taste and knowledge are sometimes considered to be counterproductive or at best a luxury we don't have the time for. I see similar things in music, but for the performer who's not in the field of auto-tuned auto-everything fakery, there remain high standards of technical achievement, at least. OK, end rant. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that even putting aside technical qualities, moral objctions, etc, it still is, forgive me for being blunt, a boring picture to look at. Even worse is you said nothing to the contrary besides that you think it's not and if anyone else thinks otherwise... Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're a much better PHOTOGRAPHER (in the best possible terms said here) than I am, or probably ever will be. That's fine, I came to terms with shooting a lot and hoping for dumb luck happening style of taking pictures. If anything the oft felt "I just missed the shot of my life!" feeling is a good indication that I don't have the eye to see what's important (in photographic terms) either because I miss it and only realize later and/or because I'm completely wrong about it. Anyhow. This doesn't make this specific picture automatically a superstar, or even an FP because you shot it or you think it is. It's possible you're wrong and unless you're willing to admit that we're not discussing anything. To address a few points made in earlier/subsequent posts:

- Saying that the Falling Soldier would not pass FP today is a strawman two (three) times over. First off we're talking about a picture shot almost a 100 years ago. We can't judge it in vacuum, saying "if it was done today". Even since 10 years ago taking pictures has changed so much, both in terms of aesthetics (some to the better, more to the worse) and in technical aspects. I'm 100% certain if I were to upload and nom an HP5 shot it would be voted down because "noisy", without any further consideration; I agree with you on that. However it would be my duty to both use film grain in a meaningful way in the world of the sleek digital and to make people take a note about gran vs noise. The other issue here is that present day we're oversaturated with death in all forms. We've seen people getting shot, stabbed, ran over, blown to pieces by artillery, thrown of roofs, beheaded, limbs pulled out, tortured in various ways etc. In motion and on still as well. Disregarding the 100 years history of the image and strictly saying "it was shot today and nominated to FP" I'm not sure I'd vote support, if I wanted to be honest. Simply because we have seen so many other forms of death that it's "nothing special" - and writing this last sentence down made me utterly sad. However, it was and still is a pinnacle achievement in photography, in it's own time. We can't look at it any other way, because it's a piece of highly regarded photographic history.

- I'll somewhat agree with your assessment of the judging of image worthiness here, in the past I was really puzzled by some images not passing because of some minute detail not being absolutely perfect, others promoted that have maybe one merit: a correct exposure and focus. There also seems to be a general unwillingness to go against the tide, take this as you may. Recently I have and probably will continue to take mostly contrarian positions on images for this very reason.

- 12 quick replies for the 12 points. 1: boring as I've said before. I get triggered seeing a bullfighting ring just as well, nothing special here. 2: not there as many have pointed it out and you kind-of-admitted. 3: Now I've not been to any bullfights so can't comment on the atmosphere, but having seen some from start to finish in video form I'm fairly confident in saying that this is just a random moment without any special qualities. 4: can't comment, don't see any positives or negatives in that regard. 5: It's ok, and in fact thinking about it the matador is probably in the best possible position. 6: the lack of sharpness is not offset by any other quality. 7: Ok I guess. 8: I and some others have pointed it out that this is missing for us, ie the image is not working i this regard. 9: drab but what can one do with the stupidity of nature, eh? Would not be an oppose factor. 10: there is no story told here. None. 11: don't think it's applicable? 12: see points 1 and 10.

Should you find (some of) the above offensive I'm sorry, but that's what your image evokes in me and that's why I voted oppose. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we all may differ on assessing individual images, Tomas is most certainly right about the rather sad state of photography as an artistic and academic discipline on Commons. FPC in particular appears to me, more often than not, as a frozen bubble of rigid formalism. This doesn't always have to be bad. One result, at least, is the assiduous production of a vast quantity of technically perfect images that are truly among the best out there and depict great spots in a phantastic way. As for myself, I also benefit from that, more than just occasionally. I'm really fond of taking straightforward architecture and landscape images, many of which are well received here. That's great! On the one side. On the other I dare not present my more unconventional pictures and thus keep them well hidden on my computer. I guess I'm not the only one. It's a relief to notice that rather young regulars like cart are successfully trying to break the ice, more and more. So I don't think that great pictures like Colin's Bluebells would face the same fate again. But there's still a long way to go until FPC gets noticed by the British Journal of Photography ;-). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting discussion. I think this would have got off to a better start if Tomas had given his rationale for why this is among our finest images of such events. The shutter speed of 1/125 is too low to capture moving people and animals and is also past the point where image stabilisation is necessary at that focal length (equivalent to 216mm in full frame and IS only improves one's chance of success, it doesn't guarantee it). So either that speed was a technical mistake or a deliberate choice. Motion blur to capture the engergy of a scene is a valid choice but we all know it is hit-and-miss. The result is also often not universally appreciated even among non-pixel-peepers. Arguing once the oppose votes have arrived tends to make everyone defensive and perhaps some of that could have been avoided with up-front information about the photographic merits being presented. I know it didn't save my Bluebell photo but the image did get a lot of support too, which I don't think it would have got if I hadn't explained it first.

We are used to seeing technically sharp documentary photography because that meets the requirement for an awful lot of educational images. It is also more straightforward to judge. I agree there is too much opposition when an image is presented that is outside of that narrow field of photography, and too much obsession with microscopic details only visible when magnified. I would like to see more styles of photography that convey emotion better, and think such images can have great educational value. It is our loss that we don't encourage them enough. -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin touches on something that I have encountered again an again in my professional life. If you want a wider audience to accept your more innovative and artistic work, you also have to prove that you are capable of doing the very "normal" work in an excellent way. This is very irrational, but that is how people function. If you just produce artistic and challenging photos, you are just a weirdo and maybe you don't know how to take good pictures. But if you also do regular work in a perfect way, people are more prone to actually stop and think when they see something new and not dismiss it outright. I always try to mix up my more innovative photos with more conventional photography just to remind folks that I can do that too if I chose to. --cart-Talk 10:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, true that a good reputation can incline one's reviewers (customers) towards a favourable examination of your more challenging images. When the challenging image is worthy then such bias can be helpful. But that's not always the case. I recall an art nude studio photo nominated here where the focus was some distance in front of the subjects and there appeared no valid artistic reason; only technical error. The photographer (not a user on Commons) was apparently well known, had his work in galleries, etc, and the nominator felt reputation was the reason why we should overlook this error, or question whether it was an error at all. Contemporary art photography has its share of technically incompetent frauds, and even the best have off-days. (I'm not suggesting anyone here is). Anyway, my main request is that if nominators don't express up-front what they find praiseworthy about their image, particularly difficult ones, then don't be surprised if others find it hard to recognise your brilliance. -- Colin (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given my votes on Tomascastelazo's nominations this may come as a surprise to some, but I actually agree with a lot of what has been written in this section, especially Martin's comment. It seems we are obsessed with technical details that may not really matter anywhere but in our little corner of the world. That's basically what drew me away from QI a while ago: Pictures seemed to be judged mostly at pixel level and candidates were rejected because of tiny bits of purple fringing while others were given the badge despite being taken under the worst possible light conditions (I'm exaggerating of course). Short digression: About that time I also realized that the reason most of my own images totally suck was (is) not primarily because of my gear or my ability to handle it. It was because I was shooting "for Commons" and thus creating (hopefully) useful but uninspired images. Over the last year or so, I've been trying to break out of all those habits and focus on the image itself rather than how it might be useful. I force myself to slow down and think before I press the shutter (being limited to 36 frames on a roll of film surely helps). My images still suck, but I think I'm on the right track. Sorry, back to topic: I very much enjoy people like cart or WClarke mixing up FPC by trying something new ("new" from Commons POV, of course). They might be more controversial and more difficult to judge, but reviewing them is a heck of a lot more fun than the umpteenth church ceiling for me. Please keep them coming! --El Grafo (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I'd like to try something like that myself some time, but I fear a picture of a forgotten chair looking at a frozen pond taken on really grainy black-and white 135 film might get a record breaking amount of opposes here ;-)[reply]

El Grafo (first of all, thanks), bring on the grainy chairs! :) I'd love to at least see such a photo. Worst case scenario is that you get showered with 'opposes', so what. Like my Gandmother used to say: "It's not a human life that ends" (she could be rather straightforward and blunt, dear Granny...) Even if you don't get it approved, it might drive home yet another tiny eye-opener and pave way for some other innovative photos. How can things be altered if no one dares to try. ;) --cart-Talk 16:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+2. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acueductos subterráneos de Cantalloc, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 09.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 21:00:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info View of some of the Cantalloc aqueducts located near the city of Nasca, Peru. There are more than 40 and they were built by the Nasca culture, a pre-Inca civilization of Nazca, about 1,500 years ago. The aqueducts ensured the supply of water to the city of Nazca and the surrounding fields, allowing the cultivation of cotton, beans or potatoes in an arid region. All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice shape and quite important as a document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good focus to very interesting composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual subject. However the tree on the left looks a bit like the effect when you lift shadows too much. The right side ground is very bright. Perhaps the sand was so bright, but would it help to reduce the exposure a little, to bring out some detail that is lost? -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: Done, the (additional) reduction of highlights was indeed an improvement. Poc o² 22:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult to make it work under that light, but you did it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Lago Covel (1,839 m).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 06:05:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Mountain walk from Pejo to Lago Covel (1,839 m) in the Stelvio National Park (Italy). Lago Covel (1,839 m). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent although a longer exposure would have helped to make an even clearer reflection and smoother clouds, but that may be a matter of taste and you certainly would have needed a ND filter. --Code (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The composition has a nice circular motion if you let it, but the main reason to feature this is just because it's such a stunning (as KoH said) image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though possibly pushed the vibrance slider a little too far for my taste (the green is rather fluorescent). -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 13:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, though I agree with Colin that the green may be not quite right. Charles (talk)
Support Very good! I'm wondering if the WB could be improved a bit... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: thanks for the comment. If everyone agrees with it, I can change the WB something.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support May be a touch of yellow, but good composition - and the necessary Wow.--XRay ^talk 20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piling on. --Yann (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -g. balaxaZe★ 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mooie weerspiegeling --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crown of the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception, known as the Crown of the Andes MET DP365520.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 01:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Jewellery
Info created by Metropolitan Museum of Art - uploaded by Czar - nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Crown of the Andes, a votive crown originally made for a larger than life-size statue of the Virgin Mary in the Cathedral of Popayán, Colombia. It dates, at least partly, to the 17th century. It contains 450 emeralds, including some that were purportedly taken from the captured Inca Emperor Atahualpa (1497–1533). This photograph is one of the many released by the Metropolitan Museum of Art under a CC-0 license, which has been a boon to free images of 3D works of art.
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For a museum shot, I think this could be better. It could probably be a bit sharper, I'd prefer a background that weren't so gray, and the crown could be lit a bit more (I'd love to see this in resplendent light). However, it's still quite good and certainly featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be honest, I prefer a darker background myself, like what the National Museum of Korea did with File:Pensive Bodhisattva (National Treasure No. 78) 01.jpg. But, for me at least, that's a purely stylistic choice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The black provides a good contrast, while I find this shade of gray somewhat depressing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good shot of the crown. Resplendent light and shiny metal surfaces don't go well together, you only end up with blown areas and reflections. Better to be able to see all the fantastic details on the crown. The grey background also helps to contrast the finer details. High EV. BUT I would like to have the description given above on the file's page instead of just here. This page will be gone from sight in a week or so while the file page will be there for a long, long time. (Why does so many users spend a lot of time on detailed descriptions here and write a bare minimum on the file page?) --cart-Talk 10:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over. The information was copied from what I'd written for the English Wikipedia nomination, which requires more detailed explanations as part of its FPC process. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That also explains why all the links were faulty. --cart-Talk 13:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support 11:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Charlesjsharp
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g. balaxaZe★ 23:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cappuchin Bridge (30706076020).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 12:14:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Cappuchin Bridge over the Selška Sora in Škofja Loka, Slovenia.
Info Created by Bernd Thaller/FlickR - uploaded by Sporti - nominated by — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice image, look a bit noise --The Photographer 12:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're right, it is a bit noisy in the darker parts, but I think it doesn't detract from other qualities too much. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some noise reduction in the image, please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 13:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice picture. A little over-processed perhaps, with the sky showing a little posterisation and sharpening halo appearing in the top left. There are a few dust spots in the sky. But the subject, composition and light are very pleasing. -- Colin (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light and the composition trumps what minor tech problems there are. Very beautiful! --cart-Talk 13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely, but please fix the three very prominent dust spots at the upper right corner as soon as you can. If those aren't fixed, this photo should not be featured, so I will be keeping tabs on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per others. Done I removed all the dirt I could find, there was quite a few. – Lucas ^T 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed too all the dust spots in the same time and I'm sorry maybe my version was creating a conflict with your version. --The Photographer 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I compared the two and I couldn't find any spots in your version that I cleaned. Seems we both got them all ;) – Lucas ^T 14:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself, I think that your version look better. I am sorry for the conflict --The Photographer 15:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Nice detail, although I wish something could be done about that unnaturally steely sky color ... looks like he was using a GND, but of course you can't tell. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could almost be a painting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely picture --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kyrenia 01-2017 img07 Castle bastion.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 12:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very neatly photographed and composed, and I imagine myself looking at the same view hundreds of years ago, when this castle was an advanced fortress for its time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have the feeling the image wants to show many things at once but in the end doesn't emphasize anything really so I feel lost. Don't get me wrong, it's all nicely done, but mainly the empty ground at the bottom feels weird to me. – Lucas ^T 13:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe a tighter crop, see note --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the long view and didn't consider the possibility it would be unappreciated here (I thought this would be a pretty uncontroversial nomination, unlike my last, short-lived one). And it's not empty ground; it's irregularly shaped stones of centuries gone by plus some dirt. All that said, I wouldn't oppose Martin's suggested crop if Alex would like to use it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Support I like it. To me the space looks like a ship's bow extending out over the water. I half expect to see Leonardo DiCaprio holding Kate Winslet at the ~~railing~~ parapet. :) --cart-Talk 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this view too. A pity I couldn't find a usage so far. Martin, Done for the crop. I hope you and others like it. --A.Savin 15:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Was the sea that blue or is it a bit oversaturated? However, I like it anyway. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It shows the sea is extremely large --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky looks a little bluer than I would like, but that's trivial compared to everything else I do like about this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Pogled kon Golemo ezero Pelsiter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 09:55:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a blue gemstone in a soft setting. --cart-Talk 12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unfortunately, for me, the shadow is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g. balaxaZe★ 23:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Битола и Пелагонија од Националниот парк Пелистер.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 08:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe overprocessed but a lot of (a tiny bit morbid) wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Martin said it. Could you please add a geocode though? --cart-Talk 12:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Geotag added.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There needs to be a line in the sand of how much overprocessing is acceptable. For me this is way on the other side. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KennyOMG. The main: too bluish. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There's your "wow" factor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PtrQs (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Entzia - Espino albar 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 19:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Psychiatrist's office, the other wall. (first wall). I quite like the vast and highly elevated view behind the tree. – Lucas ^T 21:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 22:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, no wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty but not featurable. --Selbymay (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selbymay, please explain "not featureable" – Lucas ^T 17:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straight and simple, not able to be featured. I only see an B&W aestheticization of a simple view. --Selbymay (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think a plain "not featurable" isn't the right expression. It would be "not featurable" if the requirement weren't met (e.g. minimum size). If this one gets enough votes, it will be featured. Perhaps it won't but maybe it will be. But I accept that you want to say that you don't think that it isn't good enough. Maybe it isn't, let's see. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now wow for me either. lNeverCry 07:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was ready to oppose based on the thumbnail, but then I took a closer look and the fog really is something special. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - OK, I've lived with this photo for a few days now, but I wasn't committed to voting. What got me off the fence was the opposition. "No wow" is fine, but "not featurable" riled me. This is not a "simple view". The shape of the tree is not ordinary and the composition with its quick dropoff into a sea of striated fog (and, if I'm seeing right, distant mountains in fog) is not ordinary. The streaks of clouds in the sky, while perhaps not so unusual in themselves, greatly help in creating a special composition by helping give the viewer's eyes direction. And to whomever finds this photo ordinary, please submit your photos that you think are equally ordinary, because you may be undervaluing them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan Kekek Glad that I made you react. I don't mind if this picture gets FP label, and it would obviously. But, to quote the guidelines, "beautiful does not always mean valuable", and I don't find much of encyclopedic value in this aestheticization which reminds me so many "beautiful" and decorative images. --Selbymay (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to follow your argumentation but sorry, I absolutely can't get it. Why shouldn't be there any encyclopedic value? Because it's nice? Because it's B&W? If you want to, you can question any picture nominated here. Ice crystals on a Window? Who would need this? An award-winning residential complex at night? Why not at daylight? Mountains at sunset? Absolutely useless! Well in this case, the picture shows at least a landscape of a certain area, a meteorological effect, a classified species of a plant. And who knows, it's possible that it'll be used by next psychiatrist article... We cannot know how it's going to be used and this refers to almost any picture here. B&W is an artistic choice but it also helps to concentrate on the image in another manner, it helps to distinguish contrast in a better way. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selbymay, this is not Wikipedia, nor is this Commons:Valued image candidates. The photos that are featured are supposed to be among the best on the site. They do not have to be "valuable" for Wikipedia. If their value is simply in looking at them, they succeed as art photography and should have their turns on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation I made is from the FP guidelines. And if this has no relation with Wikipedia, which front page are you talking about ? --Selbymay (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The front page of Commons, a Wikimedia project that is not Wikipedia and not an encyclopedia. Yes, "beautiful does not always mean valuable" is in the FP guidelines, but "encyclopedic" is nowhere to be found in those guidelines. Look at the context:

   almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
   night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
   beautiful does not always mean valuable.

Nothing about "encyclopedic value" there. Instead, the conclusion is drawn by citing sunsets and night shots, which are very common motifs. And they absolutely can be featured and are featured, but must be special in some way, in the opinion of FPC voters. Do you really think Commons is purely an arm of Wikipedia? I'm an admin at Wikivoyage, and we use Commons thumbnails extensively and are not encyclopedic but a travel guide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 20:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sonnenuntergang am Kaisergebirge, Tirol, 160623, ako.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 00:43:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:Code - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If your first reaction is "This is just another sunset picture", hear me out. No it's not. First of all, I think this very peaceful rural motif is borderline featurable even in normal light. But beyond that, this is a picture of a sunset in which we can't see the sun but can see the light in several colors being refracted by and through the mountains and coming up behind them. I can't know whether it'll be special enough to you for you to vote to feature the photo, but it is to me, and it surely is not just an average well-taken sunset shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated, tilting, unnatural colors, unsharp, lack of wow. -- KennyOMG (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else can address the rest of your objections if they like ("tilting" strikes me as an odd objection to a photo of a hilly area, but maybe there's something I missed), but knowing the solar light spectrum as we all do, why do you think the colors are "unnatural"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I'm on an oppose run tonight. I get that the rays are from the sun and are not supposed to be horizontal, however 3–4 degrees cw looks more natural to me (especially the trees on the far right). Can't be sure though, maybe I'm wrong about it. However the colors _do_ look unnatural to me, specifically the yellow. Even with the saturation dialed down to −30 or so it still doesn't feel right. I've seen some weirdo sunsets but never canary-yellow. Again, might be my mistake, and if you can point me to other examples of it I'll happily change to Neutral since that's my biggest gripe with this one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm of course fine with oppose votes but I think KennyOMG is wrong regarding tilt and unsharpness. There is no tilt IMO (how would you see it, there are no verticals in the picture?) and the sharpness is rather excellent (it's the sharpest lens I own and the settings were just right for this situation). Saturation and wow may be a matter of taste, of course. --Code (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, Code, the trees on the right look more natural with a few degrees cw. However there's also a somewhat objective way of judging (not 100% but shows medium to large tilts): reduce the colorspace to 8 bits with no dither and you'll see how the different colors start to band. The yellow should be horizontal on the left, curving slightly downwards towards the right as you get closer to the sun. As for unsharp, I was referring to the bottom part of the image - but thinking about it I'll retract that, since most digital sensors have trouble resolving dark greens to begin with. Instead I'd like to point out auras around some hills (but not all). -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for the nomination, Ikan Kekek. I know that sunset pictures are always very difficult here and I'm therefore not sure this one will pass but for me it's one of my better landscape pictures. And yes, I indeed increased the saturation of the red and yellow tones somewhat to emphasize the warm light of the sun a little bit because that's what my impression was when I was there. The RAW file of course looks somewhat flat (as mostly). What I personally like of this picture is the depth it provides due to the different mountain layers. --Code (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's not significantly tilted, and clearly not by 3 or 4°... the evergreen trunks in the background are perfectly vertical as near as I can tell. I do think it's a little oversaturated but probably not enough to ruin it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kenny, the yellow and blue look off a bit to me too. lNeverCry 07:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 10:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most people go home, when the sun is set; photographers know: that's when the colors start to show .. --PtrQs (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I think this image is oversaturated: blue fog??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen purple fog at sundown, so why not blue fog? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because perhaps "oversaturated"!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museum Brandhorst June 2014 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 15:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info A rather radical, abstract view of the colorful facade of Munich's Museum Brandhorst, composed of 36,000 vertical ceramic louvers in 23 different colored glazes. This is my second attempt here after a very (and maybe all too) short-lived nomination in 2014. I couldn't retake the picture as intended back then. Everytime I passed the building with my camera in hands, the outer conditions I experienced there - especially the sky - were significantly worse. So I tried to address the issues mentioned the last time. I cropped the original image a bit, adjusted lighting and sharpness. I think it's improved now. What I really like about the picture is that it's not a formal representation of what one would usually expect. The composition is both simple and striking, consisting bascially of three overlapping triangles. Although there are in fact a lot of colors, the image is - more or less - dominated by shades of yellow/red and blue, a bit interspersed with specks of green and brown. So, at least imo, the photo successfully tries to reduce and deconstruct a complex urban architecture to a very limited array of visual elements. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Real art. --Yann (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely abstraction; reminds of the cover of Yes's Going for the One. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Me like! :) --cart-Talk 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes you can identify a FP from its thumbnail and just click on it to be sure it's not a total failure in quality (even though you know it'll be just fine) … --El Grafo (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good, and I like your conventional picture of the museum, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reduced to the Max! --PtrQs (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding in its simplicity. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support fun. Charles (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --Laitche (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two seconds to death.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 18:26:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me pause. It's a powerful photo and per Ikan's argument in your previous nomination, we should not disregard these photos on moral grounds alone. – Lucas ^T 18:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This has a lot of pathos, such that I don't really care that the hat the guy on the left is wearing is cut off on top. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no intention of dodging good but controversial pics. This is of acceptable quality considering the circumstances. Last year we featured a photo of a starving polar bear, both these animals are dying needlessly because of man's stupidity and I don't see that much difference between them. We need good documentary photos too, however gruesome. I remember how I felt about putting this pic on the en-wiki front page for an ITN, but still it was done for the sake of an article involved in important news. --cart-Talk 19:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is far too poor, as is the composition. ~~You cannot compare the polar bear image with this everyday scene.~~ Charles (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't comparing the qualities of the photos, I was speaking about the subjects and their featurability. Sorry if that was unclear. --cart-Talk 20:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow only a torture of a poor animal --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I wonder how many of those who are objecting to featuring this photo on moral grounds would have the same view about a picture of an animal being slaughtered. Killing animals is something people do, and especially if you don't like it, it's important to depict it so that others can see what is happening. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on featuring photos showing death / torture

killed in a slaughterhouse is a thing....torture him is another.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 00:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm opposed to bullfighting, too. But both involve people killing animals, and the best way to fight against bullfighting is to publicize images with pathos like this one, which touch people in their hearts more than prose descriptions of the victim's suffering can. In terms of slaughtering, anyone who eats meat but can't bear to witness a slaughter ought to become a vegetarian, so in that case, too, I think that it's important for people to see what we're doing to animals. That's the analogy to me, not that slaughtering and bullfighting are the same, which they are not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a strawman, Ikan, twice over. Slaughterhouses are not run for the enjoyment of seeing animals getting tortured and killed. And the vegetarian stuff, please. As for your moral grounds argument, you personally got bullied into withdrawing the SF windows pic because of.. "privacy issues"? What is that if not a moral argument? Obviously nothing illegal was done, otherwise the pic wouldn't be on Commons, so please explain to me how the morality of personal privacy compares against the morality regarding animal cruelty? Many thanks in advance. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "bullied" into doing anything. I simply thought about things and made a decision. If you think that making an analogy between showing what happens at slaughterhouses and showing what happens at bullfights is too much of a stretch, analogizing that to people's rights to privacy is truly irrelevant. I don't see how you can feature a photo that you believe violates people's rights to privacy as a way of dramatizing the right of privacy for people to think about it. However, showing the brutalization of a bull in the ring can indeed have the effect of generating or strengthening opposition to bullfighting, and if you don't see how, nothing I post here could get you to see it. Similarly, seeing images of animals being slaughtered can have an effect on viewers. For the record, I am not a vegetarian, but I do believe that anyone who cannot bear to witness a slaughter - which I have witnessed, repeatedly, when I was living in rural Malaysia - should be a vegetarian. I do not like to see images of bullfighting, but I don't think I or other viewers should be spared them, and since I've already stated my position on the "sport" above, I don't need to repeat it here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my argument in a different way, too. I don't condemn all moral arguments against showing or featuring photographs. However, I consider this one misguided, for the reasons I've stated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was against slaughterhouse pictures. Certainly not based on moral grounds. I also don't agree that anyone unable to witness a slaughter should be vegetarian simply because we could equally well (even better) argue if you can't catch game you should become a vegetarian. Equally nonsensical. Anyway, on the moral questions to me it boils down to this: a really big percentage of the population agrees that bullfighting is nothing short of barbaric, they need no convincing or reminders. To me featuring a picture also means that it has some kind of significance - and, again, according to my own reasoning, there are subjects that need no glorification because the societal consensus already existing. Similarly I would never vote support in a girl getting circumcised, on an ISIS execution (not even if there's a very compelling and personal sotry that comes with it). None of these need to be elevated now to any kind of significance, while we're living in in a world where these are everyday occurences. But that's just me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view and thank you for explaining it, but I think the very fact that bullfighting still exists and is legal in some countries is a pretty strong countervailing fact, showing that pressure needs to be increased to ban it. Also, it's OK if you disagree with my point on meat-eating, but my point of view is, if you are unable to emotionally tolerate witnessing a slaughter, you should become a vegetarian, because eating meat means that animal lives have to be taken for you and therefore, the animal had to be slaughtered for you to be able to eat its meat even though the slaughter happened out of your sight and hearing. It's to me an unfortunate part of urban and suburban living that people can have the luxury of thinking that meat comes in supermarket packages, not from an animal that was alive and killed for you. Making that equivalent to an argument about whether you are physically able and skilled enough to catch game is irrelevant to my moral argument, and I think that you need to understand the basis for someone else's argument in order to sincerely disagree with it. But I do get your analogy with female genital mutilation and IS murders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also understood your point perfectly, Ikan Kekek, just skipped a few steps in my reply. That's my failure. Let me just quickly go back to your argument that someone not being able to witness a slaughter should become a vegetarian. If we were to grade "meat awareness" I can think of 4 different categories along your line of thought: 1. Someone who knows meat = animals but can't accept slaughter for what it is. 2. Someone who can accept but not witness a slaughter in order to get meat. 3. Someone who can witness a slaughter but won't be able to kill an animal themselves. 4. Someone willing to kill animals for their meat. You posit that 2) should become vegetarian, because [reasons]. My question here is why not 4? Why should you be a meat eater if you can't bring yourself to push a button, shoot a gun, cut a neck, cut off a head, stomp or do anything else to get your protein? What makes witnessing a slaughter so special compared to getting the meat yourself? At the same time 1) is where I think the line to vegetarianism should (and actually do) lie. If you can't accept that animals killed for your food, don't eat them, regardless whether you could do it yourself or could watch it or not. I don't think it gets any simpler than that.

At the same time, my counter argument was about that if you think emotional inability disqualifies someone from eating meat why shouldn't physical disability do the same? In a situation where you have 2 people, one who can physically catch an animal for food but is unable to kill it, and another one who's unable to catch anything but has absolutely no issues killing anything and dismantling the carcass, you say 1) should become a vegetarian but 2) is fine in the ranks of the meat eaters. Pushing it even further 1) might even be willing to kill the animal, just literally not able to handle blood/insides while 2) can be someone who refuses to kill anything but has no problem seeing all the gore. According to you the latter is still more entitled to eat meat than the one who catches and kills it.

In short my issue was that you made up some arbitrary categories along the lines that supported your argument about said categories. -- KennyOMG (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Well argued. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Livio. Yann (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on technical grounds. -- KTC (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While this one at least looks better at thumbnail size, it still has a fair amount of ringing, and lacks the drama that was in the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not as bad as the other one technically, but it still looks like the 50D's sensor is really struggling there. Sorry, it's just not up to today's quality standards. Strongly agree with Cart on the subject matter, though. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I HATE KILLING! --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do not support killing, but that does not prevent me from supporting featuring a picture of a brutal killing. The picture tells a story and is able to generate strong feelings when you look at it. It is unpleasant, horrifying; or if you like bullfighting it describes the very moment just before the climax of an epic struggle between man and beast. The quality of the picture is acceptable and the motif striking. --Pugilist (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There is definitely no aesthetics in this picture. I can't see this being a featured picture as there is not much of a foreground or background. I can only see sadness instead of the beauty in this picture as I don't like killing. Anyway, why would someone put a image that has killing as a featured picture? There is no beauty or aesthetics. Therefore, I strongly oppose to this picture. -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:West Pier March 2017 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 08:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The former West Pier in Brighton, England. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Featurable, but first, fix the dark streak if it wasn't actually in the sky and fix the dust spot. I tried to notate more or less where they are, but it's not so easy to do except from full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thank you Ikan Kekek.--ArildV (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The composition with the former pier is very good. The swirling clouds echo the waves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another in the sort of images that always make me start hearing Coldplay's "Clocks", or at least that piano riff, in my head when I see them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too dark for me. lNeverCry 23:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now if you could go back in time and arrange the pier to be burnt down in a more symmetric way, it'll be perfect. ;) -- KTC (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. The darkness of the exposure helps preserve the mood of the scene. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'm wondering how a, let's say, exposure of 10s would look like... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something like this. ;) Search on Flickr for "west pier long exposure" and you'll find a lot of such versions of this view. Arild's version is better. --cart-Talk 23:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like something out of this world. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I'm usually the biggest fan of ArildV's photography I think that in this case the light is simply too dull. And the exposure time should have been longer for this kind of photograph. Sorry. --Code (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Arild Vågen: There are two very bright spots on the front right and 2nd from front left pillar. That's not where I would expect reflections etc. to happen under these circumstances. Are you sure they're supposed to be there? --El Grafo (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Edit: whoops, messed up the ping: @ArildV: --El Grafo (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- El Grafo I took a few images of the pier and all have the same bright spots in roughly the same places on the pillars (even then I have moved the camera). Maybe it is a hole through the pillar? I don't know, but I think it should be there.--ArildV (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for checking! I'd probably clone them out anyway as I find them a bit disturbing, but I certainly won't demand that from others. → Support --El Grafo (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do love the motion in the sky (remarkable if only a 1/10s exposure) mirroring the motion in the water and the wave crashing. I agree with Code it is a rather dull though, and would benefit from perhaps a half stop raised exposure, some more contrast, a little clarity and vibrance too. I played a little with the JPG in ACR and the result is a lot happier. But Arild, you should be aware that it is illegal to shoot the sea and piers round the UK without using a 10-stop ND filter (of course, I agree with Cart that this is better). -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an aside, while we are all (ping Tomascastelazo, Martin, etc), discussing arty photos, this image reminds me of the Landscape Photographer of the Year winner Starling Vortex which includes the West Pier. Plenty blurred action there! -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all for votes and interesting comments!--ArildV (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 21:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016 Singapur, Rochor, Świątynia Sri Krishnan (21).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 19:48:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info all by me -- Halavar (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Could be a bit sharper and I'd prefer if the top crop were a little higher, but that's an absolutely beautiful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks restless and a little bit unsharp. May be it's leaning in too.--XRay ^talk 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Done New, version uploaded. I added more sharpness and made minor perspective correction. Hope it's better now:) --Halavar (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color and detail. A little noisy, perhaps, but I'm going to assume you were limited by the light conditions. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And yet another picture with no noise issues, yet it continues to be mentioned like some disease. -- Colin (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Edita Malovčić Österreichischer Filmpreis 2017 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 21:01:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Tsui - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. Yann (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Garden-variety portrait, and the shirt is blah. lNeverCry 23:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per INC, and I think that if you include that much of that shirt it should be sharper. Might have made a good headshot, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad for a red-carpet-shot with probably difficult light, I'm missing something extraordinary that would place it among "Commons' finest images". --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo – Lucas ^T 10:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see any beauty in it. -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panthera uncia - Zoo Karlsruhe 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 21:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The animal gets a bit lost in the background. lNeverCry 23:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is a typical example of camouflage of animals and also the aim of it. --Llez (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Llez: I like the leopard, but you're really limited by the zoo environment. In the wild, these guys can be found on top of big rocks or hills, or in meadows, both of which would give you a chance at better bokeh. Camouflage wasn't designed to be helpful to photographers. lNeverCry 07:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to photographers, but to the leopards ;-) --Llez (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose zoo background (and crop). Charles (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, as I've said with so many other nominations of images showing how an animal's camouflage works, what makes this effective as that kind of demonstration also makes it ineffective as an FP required to wow the viewer, since the animal fades into the background too much. The fact that some of it is blurred doesn't help, either. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, in my view the wow factor does not have to be so closely related to the background separation than you make it sound it is. The picture could provide plenty of wow for someone exactly because at first sight, the leopard was not well visible, and it takes a bit longer to see it. Whereas wildlife with smooth background blur is desireable, it is the more common kind of photograph. Would you oppose a photograph showing an animal perfectly hidden in plain sight, demonstrating the camouflage the best possible way, solely on lack of subject separation, just on principle? While it doesn't have to be this photo, I believe photos demonstrating camouflage should be given a fair chance for FP. (Maybe we already have some featured, I didn't check) – Lucas ^T 18:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: This is just why it doesn't work for me. Others are free to disagree and support. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I continued my inquiry of Daniel Case on his talk page) – Lucas ^T 07:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love many things of this photograph. The different textures between background and the cat, good volume of areas, etc. Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background and crop. Yann (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tomascastelazo – Lucas ^T 14:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ravenel Bridge at night from Mt Pleasant.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 22:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info all by Juliancolton –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A couple people at QIC seemed to think this would stance a chance here at FPC, so I'm giving it a shot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the crop at right with the cut-off support. lNeverCry 23:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! It's like some futuristic fantasy painting. (And if need be that last support column to the right can be cropped off.) --cart-Talk 23:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @W.carter: I'd actually like to see more space at right with two full columns. It might gel a bit more with the two main supports. But it looks like I'll just be slowing down FPCBot a bit with my lone oppose... lNeverCry 07:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you see, I'm not opposing, but I found your rationale perfectly reasonable, and I even agree with you that it would be better if the rest of the support were included. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't have a strong position about this, I'm happy with the pic either way. But if you were to twist my arm, I could say that working with what we have and cropping the last half support would move the composition almost into the style of moribana ikebana. The pylons on the bridge acting like "flowers" and it would actually balance the floating thing acting like "stone" in the water in such a compo. Note: This is just me flipping out into artsy talk again. --cart-Talk 12:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the art talk, but I think the removing the rest of the support would be a problem because then the section with the diagonal girders going up to the tower would be cropped very close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also true, let's just leave the pic as it is and enjoy it. :) --cart-Talk 13:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the suggested crop here but ended up reverting it since I agree with Ikan in that the suspension cables were too close to the edge of the frame. Frankly, if I were to shoot it again, I'd probably frame it a bit differently. My "excuse" here is that the mosquitoes were absolutely appalling down by the water, so I was rather hasty with my composition and made a mad dash back to the car after a couple exposures. That said, this is one of the only spots where you can get such a view of the bridge, and it's on private property, so I probably won't be reshooting for quite a while... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I actually see the alternative, I find it more restful. It could be offered as an alt, I suppose. However, I don't care greatly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very good "excuse", we like you to survive. ;) --cart-Talk 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The thing to the left that's floating in the water is a bit of a distraction, but I love the soft light cart refers to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 10:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is fine for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant light and composition, and very decent quality though the right side seems to leaning in. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo for the dark conditions; sometimes at night in conditions like these I've had trouble controlling glare from lights, though glare is handled well here. WClarke 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Laitche (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olive baboon (Papio anubis) with juvenile.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2017 at 16:41:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info The female olive baboon (Papio anubis) will allow her offspring to travel on her back for up to a year. This one will soon have its last free ride. Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a face on that baby baboon! Did it realize you were looking at it? Anyway, for that, I'm willing to overlook the inevitable blurred grass between you and the baboons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it's looking at me. The mother knows I'm no threat. Charles (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Has "awwwwww..." factor. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 21:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. The only flaw I see is that it's rather small. Is this a crop? --Code (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, cropped from 5472 x 3648. Would that I could have got closer. Charles (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 09:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) Looks a little bit like JPEG compression and artifacts. --XRay ^talk 11:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is one little badass baboon. :-) --cart-Talk 10:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Strategic Air Command B-47 Stratojets - 020903-o-9999r-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2017 at 15:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info Strategic Air Command B-47 Stratojet bombers. The world's first swept-wing bomber. Created by US Air Force - uploaded by Upload Bot - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Superb quality, asthetically pleasing, and the placid scenery minutes after a shower contrast very well with the cold war craze emanated form the photo. I know some will say it's burnt out but please consider that this picture was 1) shot on film with much greater exposure latitude than what digital can handle most of the time and 2) was scanned in 2006 (or earlier) when the technical capabilities were not the same as they are today. I'm absolutely certain the negative has all the highlight info in the clouds. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, we're judging the digital version and not the negative. But there's no problem with clipping highlights in general. It's just that clipping typically occurs very abruptly on digital sensors due to their linear response to light, and that often leads to sharp and ugly-looking borders between clipped and non-clipped areas. One of the few advantages negative film still has today is that the response to light is not linear and the transition from pure black (on the negative) to areas with less density is often much smoother (some examples here). This one looks perfectly fine for me. And there hasn't really been much innovation in terms of dedicated film scanners since the mid-2000s [10] – actually many manufacturers stopped making film scanners around that time, so chances are this is about as good as it gets (no info on the scanner model in the meta data, but at least they used 3 progressive scan runs). Oh, and of course it's an awesome picture. --El Grafo (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant post-processing like hdr and such. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and El Grafo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dynamic, interesting photo and good quality scan. – Lucas ^T 18:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full of mood and drama. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 09:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --cart-Talk 10:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AVIA BavARia (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:峇株建筑01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 16:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is a amazing photo show the beautiful Batu Pahat building and you can know the town is a historical town through this AMAZING picture.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Building
Info created by RoyeN - uploaded by RoyeN - nominated by *angys* -- *angys* (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a amazing photo show the beautiful Batu Pahat building and you can know the town is a historical town through this AMAZING picture.-- *angys* (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very far from FP level. Not even QI. Yann (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Галичица.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 09:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

National Park Galičica seen from the peak Krstec, Macedonia.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Silfiriel - uploaded by Silfiriel - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great composition, but sharpness could be better. A new version with better sharpness would be much appreciated, I would think. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have uploaded a sharper version.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not perfect, but I have never seen any other landscape that illustrates how to draw the viewer into it. Of course it requires having a landscape like this to photograph, but given that you still have to make it work. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great atmosphere, but I'm missing something in the composition. Also, NR has made the distant hills look like mush. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 04:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per King of Hearts. I knew it would be difficult to sharpen the image and reduce the noise without harming the image.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dromedaries, UAE, March 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info I know, this is an odd nomination. Technically it's obviously a mess. You don't even need to pixelpeep (so just don't!) to see the high degree of unsharpness, the off focus, the wacky composition. Why do I want to give it a shot anyway? I like this image very much. It makes me smile everytime I stumble upon it. Smile like a camel. Like the two dromedaries I happened to find in the desert outside Abu Dhabi, UAE. So this picture is all about the emotion photography can evoke. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes Martin, you might be "All by myself"! Charles (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination quite obviously, Charles, quite obviously... well, this doesn't come as totally unexpected. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Карпести формации близу село Трпејца.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 09:20:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Silfiriel - uploaded by Silfiriel - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but sharpness and CA issues are severe! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin; I do not believe they can be fixed enough to make this featurable (a shame, since the composition is there). Daniel Case (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too much CA and sharpness issues, perhaps some other time will upload a better image. Silfiriel 17:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carrier Strike Group in Atlantic December 10 2013 131210-N-VC599-169.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 19:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info Ships from the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group simulate a strait transit. The strike group is conducting a pre-deployment evaluation. Created by US Navy/MC3 Justin Wolpert - uploaded by Marcd30319 - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not so sure about this one. The crops seem at first to be problematic, and there are several dust or water spots on the image. Sure, it has a general aura of impressiveness, but I'm not so sure it stands out from among other US Military photos we're considered (and in most cases, promoted). On the other hand, the grainy view of waves with ships reminds me of Romantic paintings, and the composition is growing on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the horizon is not horizontal. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, there are just too many issues with this: bad crop, very grainy, CA everywhere, vignetting, ships scattered, dull light. Had this been a WWII photo, it might have been acceptable, but not for a modern photo. --cart-Talk 20:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info If you could delete these dust spots (near left and right border) and the CAs I would support this picture, as I think the grainy structure goes with the topic and the weather (although the crop is a bit tight on the right) --PtrQs (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; cart again pretty much sums up why. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:NASA's Orion Spacecraft Parachutes Tested at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 09:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 09:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. I didn't like the multiple levels of vignetting (both very soft and more noticeable at the corners) so I uploaded a new version with corrected vignetting, but I wasn't able to eliminate it completely without introducing too noticeable banding in 8 bit at the top right corner. One colorband going from the bottom left to the right was already there, though. Revert as you wish. – Lucas ^T 10:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. But a small issue: Please check for minor CAs (magenta, green). --XRay ^talk 11:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great photo of the parachutes, but the banding in the sky bugs me, and there's what looks like a dust spot to the left of about the center of the parachutes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek , I removed the banding, but I couldn't find the dust spot after I was done with it. – Lucas ^T 16:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately weak Support - I still see some banding, but it's much subtler, and the parachutes are beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support really beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lucas did a good job removing the banding and vignette. -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 18:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Episkopi 01-2017 img12 Kourion.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 03:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Could one imagine God Himself coming down to bear witness to the ruins of this ancient basilica? The poetic possibilities of this photograph are inexhaustible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

prosaic comment - If anyone knows what subcategory would be best for this photo, please edit the generic "Places" category. I thought of "architecture", but these are ruins, and I don't know what category those go into. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great clouds. @Ikan Kekek: Maybe religious buildings as a category since this is a basilica, or maybe there's a category for ruins? Interesting to note that the word basilica comes from Greek and basically means "the house of a king". lNeverCry 03:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan; I can easily see the painterliness (God, I've been using that one here a lot lately) of the image and how it attracted you. The sunset and crepuscular rays put this one over the edge. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the sky! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination, though I must admit I like number 11 more. --A.Savin 12:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They're both great photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry to spoil the party. I really like the top half of this photo. The rest, with the gravel and the hexagonal metal fence, meh. That's too little. I like number 11 more, as it has stronger leading lines to the sunset, though perhaps a crop with just the top 2000 pixels would eliminate much of the rubble in the bottom. -- Colin (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Colin. Charles (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support withdrawal of this nom and nomination of photo#11 instead, but it's up to Ikan I think. --A.Savin 19:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the photographer, you have the right to withdraw a nomination of one of your photos, if you so choose. I don't agree with the opposers, so I don't feel like withdrawing, especially with 10 supporting votes. But you can. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and I strongly favor number 11 over this one. – Lucas ^T 20:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

After some consideration, I have decided to withdraw this nomination as the photographer, and I am now going to nominate File:Episkopi 01-2017 img11 Kourion.jpg instead. On the one hand, both photos are similar so that only one of them should be promoted, but on the other hand, these are two different shots and I cannot suggest the other one as an alternative in the same nom; which means that a new nomination is the correct way. It may be a matter of taste, but I really prefer the other picture, mainly because of the composition, and perhaps the sunset mood is a little bit more intensive there (photo was taken three minutes earlier). Thanks Ikan and all others who commented here. --A.Savin 00:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flamenco en el Palacio Andaluz, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 08.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 19:10:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Flamenco performance in Palacio Andaluz, Seville, Spain. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by The Photographer 19:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer 19:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - What an intense facial expression! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a little bad about this, but I find the counterexample and arguments of the opposing voters persuasive, and I'm also finding that rolled-up thing in the background distracting, so I'm changing my vote to Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cool, thank you The Photographer, it was also in my long queue :) Poc o² 20:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, btw, nice expression! --The Photographer 20:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's also the reason why I enjoy it, you can almost feel that passion and pride Poc o² 20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The guy "hugging" her from behind is unfortunate, as is the silver microphone stand sticking into her right arm, and the green tint on her clothes is not great as well. Her dark green dress is preventing the separation from the cluttered background, which also has some shadows that further distract from the main subject. The overal image looks underexposed (could be a fair representation of the venue, of course, but still I would have brightened it up to reveal more detail in the dress, and it just feels like it should be brighter because of stage lights). As leg action is important in Flamenco, it would have been better to include more at the bottom. As it is, it is a very centered and IMO too high framing. I struggle to regard this as one of the best pictures we have, sorry. – Lucas ^T 21:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her face looks much too red. White balance, color saturation, or something else? Yann (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I remember this series well from QIC and even then I didn't think they were that great. He expression and pose is very much flamenco, but the light is not the best, the background is very busy and the crop is too high. Flamenco is just as much about the legs and feet of the dancer, so it would have been great if there had been less space above her head and more of her legs showing. Sorry. --cart-Talk 22:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann's comment and other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will have a look into it tonight and see how I can improve it Poc o² 11:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version, Yann, do colors look now better to you?

Lucas: the new version is a bit brighter, but I don't think that it depicts the scene necessarily in a more realistic way the way I observe it. Regarding background and colors I can only say that it was an stage, with limelights and a lot of other musicians and generally it was quite dark and I tried to take pictures when the lights were powered on, otherwise it would be very noisy. Do you find this other shot better?

cart, to me flamenco is a very passionate dance and I enjoy the face expression of the dancer. It is of course a lot of work with legs and hands, too, but that was not the purpose of this shot. What do you think about this one? Poc o² 19:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The colors look better now. All the different shots from this performance have elements that taken together would be great, but I don't think that one of the lone photos is quite there. For me a really good flamenco pic would be something like this. That photo has the intense concentrated expression, the pose, movement and it is full-figure with a less messy background. Sorry. --cart-Talk 19:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with cart. While the other photos might be better, I think they still would have a hard time becoming FP because of the background, at least for me. – Lucas ^T 19:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yes, the colors are better now, but looking at File:Flamenco en el Palacio Andaluz, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 06.JPG, we can see that her face is still too red. Background is also disturbing, her feet are missing, so not FP quality overall. Sorry. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo's Chariot in Palazzo Barberini by Giuseppe Bartolomeo Chiari.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 22:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A valiant effort, but the uneven lighting on the right doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Daniel Case's point. -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Gregory the Great by José de Ribera.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 21:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frame unsharp in places. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birling Gap March 2017 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 14:55:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Rocks on the beach in Birling Gap, East Sussex. In the foreground a chalkstone from the cliffs. In the background Seven Sisters. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, I just cannot find something that would make this rocky beach photo "special". Is it the big stone in the centre? No, as far as I am concerned. --Argος (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. According to the rules 4.Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Before your two edits here you had made only 32 edits on Commons. --cart-Talk 17:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice place, how I envy you that escape to a better climate. However, this photo is not working for me. If you are going to have a rock as center piece, all of it needs to be sharp, now some focus fall on the gravel in front of it (maybe a two-pic focus stacking could have helped). The background is also unbalanced. The high cut cliff to the right and the people there is too much. I think it would have been better to turn the camera more to the left and get only sea and the far off cliffs as backdrop or more to the right and had just the great white cliff. Also, I'm all for authenticity, but a little analogue editing (such as turning the stone) could have left us without the center of focus being something that looks like bird droppings... --cart-Talk 15:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart, who covers what's wrong with this image which could otherwise be featurable so thoroughly there is no need to add to it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 04:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 04:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graft union on vines in Lysekil 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 16:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Vitaceae
Info A vineyard is probably not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of a small, cold, boring, northern town in Sweden. However, the owners of a restaurant by an allotment area has created just that, to everyone's delight. The very low and sharp winter sun lit up all the knobs from grafting and pruning on the vines in a spectacular way. I'm also looking forward to some more photos there in spring and summer when the real action starts in the vinyard. -- cart-Talk 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I read your nomination text and file description, and I couldn't figure out what the photo is supposed to be about. Then I followed the link on the file description and went back to the photo to search for the graft union (to be fair, that word was new to me). Well, I found it in the photo, I think, but my point is the photo is not very clear in showing what the subject is. My first reaction was that it looks like a random shot of dry twigs, something I catch myself producing too often. The subject separation from the dry grass behind is also not great, the shadows too, and there are some elements out of focus that I would have welcomed to see sharp, like the steel rod there, just because they are so prominent and nearby that it looks weird to have them slightly blurred. Generally, parts of the surface go in and out of focus so that visually, I'm never quite sure what to look at, my eyes struggle to find a resting point anywhere. – Lucas ^T 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Since the good people at QIC also have some trouble with this photo, it is only fair that I withdraw it here too. I may try again with one of the other "knots", we'll see. Thanks! :) --cart-Talk 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peace lily - 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 19:06:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Since Martin is currently taking care of the abstract department, I'm going to present a little more conventional photo. These flowers are usually photographed in their upright position, but I liked the way this flower slightly nodded so that the "sail" on it became a little dome, shielding the spadix and creating a beautiful line. -- cart-Talk 19:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 19:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I approved it for QI and I am delighted to see it here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm delighted to hear that we have an abstract department ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that I'm already snorkeling a bit in the history of photography, this reminds me of Karl Blossfeldt's approach to the German variation of straight photography. And if a "plant must be valued as a totally artistic and architectural structure," then this flower might serve as a model for organic architecture. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the simple but effective composition. Some would say it's not as sharp as it could be, but this imho is one of those images where zooming in means missing the point, as Colin put it elsewhere. But I think I would like a bit more, or maybe less soft light on this. I'm not sure yet … --El Grafo (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is a lot of beauty in the flower. It has a simple composition but it was capture very effectively. -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Taxidermy of a snake skin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 19:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Wagner Souza e Silva - uploaded by Joalpe - nominated by Lucas.Belo -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello everyone, this is my first indication for Featured and when reading the criteria for the nominating I noticed that this image seems to fits for this award. Among many other relevant characteristics, this image has a high definition, it's result of a reported GLAM and it also has a detailed metadata, describing for example the snake skin's species. Lucas.Belo (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find there is a bit too much space left empty at the top, so I would prefer a tighter crop, but I'll support it anyway for novelty. – Lucas ^T 20:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was thinking about this as a QI, and I'll have to give some thought to this as an FP before making a decision. But before I do: What are the white spots on the black background surface? Bits of dust? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ikan Kekek: , there is no possibility of indicating this image to the QI, because the author is not a Commons user. The spots on the black background are particle air and environment, but I believe this can be improved by users. -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right about QI. I'm not feeling impelled to vote for a feature for this picture. I probably would if the dust was digitally cleaned, but maybe I'm being unreasonable. In any case, I won't vote against a feature, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support variatio delectat --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot, ok the dust on the black could be cloned out, but overall good light and feel for the texture. --cart-Talk 08:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johann Jaritz, W.carter, Martin Falbisoner, Daniel Case, and Ikan Kekek: , Lucasbosch, tighter cropped, and digital cleaning, removal of the dust around the object, xoxo -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very interesting. Probably worth noting on the image page that this is anaconda skin using plain English (in addition to the species binomial already included). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks a lot, Rodrigo. I support this now as a very good and highly interesting scientific picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 04:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Summer house destroyed by fire Blåvandshuk Denmark 2017-02-18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 22:31:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
Info This picture is from the thatched summer houses located at the most western point of Denmark; Blåvandshuk. The burned down house in the foreground was hit by lightning on Nov 19, 2016 and rapidly burned down due to its thatched roof. I am intrigued by the contrast between the ruin and intact houses partially hidden in sand dunes in the background, which are all very expensive (300000-70000$ market price) Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The neighbors are all thinking about switching to shingles or tiles... lNeverCry 01:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about a entry at Wikinews about this event? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 01:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. I guess if the burnt house stood out more starkly than it does, I might have supported. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A great documentary photo, but it has no artistic line or element that makes me go 'wow'. Such old/new or in this case burned down/still standing comparative photos are always hard to get right. There are so many unfortunate but interesting features that a burned building provides for a photo. Perhaps a pic lining up and focusing on the chimneys (burned and not) or something would have worked better, or even a solitary photo of the burned house in that sea of grass. Sorry. --cart-Talk 14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the review, cart. You nail it pretty well in your review and i understand what you mean. I am standing on top of a dune such that I have an elevated vantage point and the ruin can better be seen. But I agree the composition and alignment is not striking, and I can't move the dunes. The February light on the day did not give much to work with either. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- cart: I actually do have a version, which is close to the idea you are proposing with chimney alignment. But at 115 mm focal distance and 1/80 s shutter time there is too much camera shake and the quality simply isn't there. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:KormoraniOtesevo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 10:36:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cormorants in Lake Prespa, near the village of Oteševo, Macedonia

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Birds resting on a ruined pier is a common motif. I've done it myself: File:Old Pier, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg. I don't think this photo has enough going on to appreciate the landscape, but also too much to be minimalist. The image quality isn't superb either. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see anything special in composition or lighting. Charles (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dull light is not enough for this scene. A bit more random glints or something that could have made the rain more distinguishable from the background mountains could have pushed it over to FP and possibly also allowed for some better sharpness. --cart-Talk 00:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version[edit]

Info Since this kind of picture actually appeals to me, I tried to give it some TLC based mainly on my own comment above. Not sure if I succeeded or if I ruined the mood, take a look and judge for yourself. Pinging voters: Colin, Daniel Case, Charles. If the nominator Kiril Simeonovski or the author Ptahhotep object to this alt, please just remove it. Best, --cart-Talk 14:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one just a little better, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid it doesn't improve it significantly for me. For me, this cliched motif has to be a much higher standard. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still no for me. Charles (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination @W.carter: Thank you for the work done in improving the image quality, but the opposition is supported with well-stated arguments and it is not likely that this is going to pass.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grumazi - Mariovo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 11:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground is too busy and the picture is too hard to understand. There are too many rocks scattered around the field. However, the background is very good. -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice view and the sheep and farmer are a good catch. But I agree the foreground is weak and the scene is underexposed and lacking contrast. I tried a wide panoramic crop but the resolution is too low to make that work well. -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pkbwcgs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't find the foreground "too busy"; I find the composition interesting. I love the rhythm of the rocks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mazet in vineyards, Mèze cf02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 11:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd be tempted to clone out the aeroplane. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: you very likely right, thanks you, it's done. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Detailed enough to make out the wind farm on the ridge, and the transmission-line towers behind the vineyard. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7. --cart-Talk 12:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:2017 Polaroid Supercolor 1000.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 21:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A perfectly good and sharp enough product photo that we certainly need, but imagine if there would have been a Polaroid photo emerging from the slot. That would have been the little extra detail that could have made this a slam-dunk FP for me. This is one of the few cameras where you have the perfect excuse for doing something different/fun/action-y with it. Just a thought... --cart-Talk 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although cart's idea does sound worth trying. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm missing some wow factor here, something that also hinders myself from nominating more of my neutral product photographs here. Per cart, a photo (showing the photographer perhaps?) would have been a different thing entirely. Also the white background is not the best choice for the white-ish parts of the camera, the subject doesn't stand out enough in my view. I also would have liked to see more of the flash bulb, part of a prominent part of the camera, as it is there is too much obscured by a reflection, which could have been avoided by placing a dark surface. – Lucas ^T 07:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of wow. If you are going for the on-white Argos Catalogue look, then it has to be spotless. This kind of image, mundane subject with unexciting presentation, really has to shine technically to wow me. See User:Evan-Amos's work, which is all generally superior to this, and "among our finest" is the criteria for FP. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with the critics. This is a very good VI/QI, but not an FP, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hann glacier.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 22:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Clemens Stockner - uploaded by Clemens Stockner - nominated by Clemens Stockner -- Clemens Stockner (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Clemens Stockner (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You haven't got one without the man have you? Charles (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The man, providing scale, doesn't bother me at all. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and the guy add life and scale to the photo. Without him, this would be just another sky-rock-ice-sea pic where you could complain about the deep shadows down left. The concept also brings to mind the start pic on Photoshop CC, I don't think they would have chosen a bad pic for that. ;) --cart-Talk 10:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with cart and Martin. Moreover, the pose the man takes really helps us feel an emotion of exhilaration in viewing the photo, and the first criterion in the 12 Elements of a Merit Image that Tomascastelazo so kindly linked for me is impact: "Compelling images evoke laughter, sadness, anger, pride, wonder or another intense emotion." The man, like us, is looking at the scene, although he's over to the right and doesn't dominate the photo. His pose suggests exhilaration, so we are able to feel this vicariously through him. Had he been facing us, it would have been a more typical pose for the camera and would have taken a lot of the quality out of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the idea of use a human like a measure to understand the size, however, 1) the iceberg is located very far from the subject and I can't imagine how this person could be used 2) The person pose is very distracting with open arms he attracts absolutely all the attention of the image, subtracting importance from the main subject. Remembering that it's only MHO --The Photographer 16:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kalmia latifolia in early morning light.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 22:30:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ericaceae
Info all by me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I know this isn't Flickr or 500px, but seriously: best viewed on a dark background. ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creative use of lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wasn't I talking about mountain laurel here a while back? Great timing what with the cold temperatures here in the valley this weekend and a serious late-winter storm on the way in a couple of days. Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts, exactly! Hope you've stocked up on your bread and milk... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beer, actually

. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light. --cart-Talk 09:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'll make my usual suggestion that you try a 16:9 crop, missing off the top bit which has a cut-off flower head, and so concentrating just on the stump. Makes a lovely screen-filling image then imo. -- Colin (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, interesting suggestion. I tried the 16:9 crop and set it so the row of flowers near the top would still be in the frame, but I wonder if I should have included more of the bottom instead. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that cropping off the cut flower is an improvement. However, losing the bottom also is less good imo. The original bottom crop had natural framing with the vegetation and led in from the bottom left corner. So if you're not bothered about a precise 16:9 then I suggest keeping your top crop but restore the bottom. However, an alternative of a 16:9 with just the top removed, focuses the eye more on the stump imo. I'm not sure about making too many edits to the original since many people have already voted. You could offer an alt and ping people. -- Colin (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the 16:9 version is definitely not an improvement IMO, ~~however much Colin likes the pics to fill his screen~~. You killed the mood of the scene, this feels suffocating and totally airless. We lost the deep shadows surrounding the stump and the flowers that made up the contrast of the photo. If this is the final version, I'm pulling my support. The only way this could have worked as a ~~Colin-sized~~ 16:9 pic was if more space had been added to the sides of the photo, but I guess that is out of the question. Not every photo looks good in standardized proportions, most of the time it's better to let the motif decide the crop instead of trying to cramp something inside some pre-fab format. --cart-Talk 23:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments that may appear insesitive and rude, as well as making a formal apology to Colin here. It was meant as friendly banter, but it came out as bad behaviour, sorry. --cart-Talk 11:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, honestly... I wasn't thrilled with the new crop, but I like to try everything once. Colin, I can still suggest an alt 16:9-ish crop if you think it's an improvement, but I think I'll leave the original intact for reasons both you and Cart mentioned. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, just to be clear, the crop I suggested was not the one made, and I agree that was inferior. I wanted to keep the deep shadows at the stump. Wrt the flowers, well the cut-off one at the top centre keeps drawing my eye (all the lines lead up to it). And also, wrt "cramp something inside some pre-fab format", the original image was 3:2 exactly, so was simply the pre-fab ratio that the camera chose, rather than one arranged round the motif. I try various crops, and sometimes find a standard one works, and so is easier to communicate. And a screen filling image is pleasing, if it has no other flaws. Whether the 16:9 was "totally airless", or (in my suggested crop) "concentrating just on the stump", are all options/opinions we can consider, though one gets influenced by what one sees first, and what one knows has been removed. IMO, this image would be improved by taking a very thin cut to the top, to remove the cut-off flower, and that would be a non-standard proportion arranged round the motif! I was actually influenced to try 16:9 by Julian's comment that a dark background helps -- the framing of a picture can make quite a difference to how it appears, and our electronic photo frames only come in one size these days. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lockheed 1049A Super Constellation (EC-121T) 1049A-55-86 by D Ramey Logan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 03:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I am not sure about the crop, commons has few photos of this plane as only a few are left. LMK if you think a alt with a different crop would work better before rejecting the photo. Thanks

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created & stuff by -- Don (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Don (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the crop is OK, and I like the wide-angle approach to photographing this plane. Good sky, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan and a good quality picture taken with a smarphone, congratulations!! Ezarateesteban 13:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice angle. --cart-Talk 19:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm missing wow, something that would elevate this to be among our finest. It's a good quality shot and the sky helps, but nothing notable in my opinion. The biggest downfall is the cluttered and similarly-colored background behind the front of the plane which harms the subject separation. – Lucas ^T 10:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Lucasbosch The "Clutter" is what we call a "Hanger". You see them on most airports. It is used to store the other parts for the airplane. If you review the [Category:Lockheed Super Constellation] you will see that ALL of the photos of this plane are close to a decade old, and quite poor in quality. You have nice studio photos, this is not a photo that can be taken in a studio. Moving the sun & a airplane that has not moved in 6 years to get a shot without the "Hanger" was I am afraid not a option without an extra 50k for the crew to move it and a FAA permit... --Don (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don, I am not comparing this in my mind with studio photos, I realise the differences. The hanger in the background just is visually interfering with the plane, so the brain needs to work out what is plane and what isn't. I imagine you wanted to show this side of the plane together with some context (=hanger), but it just didn't work out well enough for a FP in my view. – Lucas ^T 16:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, the FP section is not about WOW, it is about quality when subjected to a comparison of similar photos, on Commons and I think sometimes this gets away from people. Over the last 2 offerings your comments have been similar in tone so I would like to offer this: no airplane of this nature would ever not have a hanger of service personal attached to it, this photo tells a complete story. The fact that only a handful of Super Constellations are left makes this in terms of it's technical features, when compared to the other photos of a on Commons worthy of consideration for FP, "what is the photos value to the project(?) considering weight, composition and technical aspects as well as difficulty of acquisition, all the others are on display in a museum or rotting in rust piles. This with the fact that I took it with my phone, as noted above should also be considered (imho) as, over the 7 years I have contributed the "pre req" for FP equipment showing that anyone could "in theory" take a photo with a regular phone that could become a FP, that was one of the original aspects of this section. My 2 cents for what it is worth.. Cheers and thank you for your wonderful contributions! --Don (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don, there is QI for purely technically good photos, there is VI for rare and unique photos and there is FP for the best of the best, where good photography is at display, be it taken with a smartphone or vintage camera. The wow factor is a small part, and it can be achieved by many factors. I appreciate that your photo is realistic in that it shows the hanger with the plane, but as I explained above the visual separation is not enough. Separation is an aspect of good photography in my and many other's opinion and I find your photo just not visually appealing because of it. In theory it would be possible to have the hanger and the plane both in the frame and have them not being mushed into eachother. The fact that it was taken with a smartphone is something I don't consider at all as FP is about the photograph itself. – Lucas ^T 18:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nicosia 01-2017 img23 View from Shacolas Tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 14:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 14:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a lot of cityscapes, shows more at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sink and taps in the men's locker room 3 BW.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 23:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info A while ago, when one of the firms at the mechanical workshop ended their contract, the men's locker room stood empty. So I snuck in and did a series of photos there. In this case, I think the B&W version is way cooler that the color, but if you want the color version as an alt, I have no problem doing that. It just looks grimier (even though I cleaned the sink before taking the photos). All by me, -- cart-Talk 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of those examples, where the photographer realised, that the reducing of colors results in a concentration of structure! - or in short version: wow! --PtrQs (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely prefer the sleek B&W version. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grayscale makes it look more industrial. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk<an>) 07:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What was wrong with the Ladies? -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Colin. Since we are only two females on the premises as opposed to about 40 men (now why does that strike me as familiar...) our little closet-sized restroom only has a small normal sink sort of like this. Not so many interesting shapes there. ;) --cart-Talk 17:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really like the symmetric composition; agreed that the grayscale makes it look more industrial. WClarke 20:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The camera position is not perfectly centered as I can see it with some visual cues. Drawing lines along the bases of the faucets confirms that the camera was too far on the right, which makes this less perfect than I would want it to be for FP, sorry. – Lucas ^T 08:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reevaluated the photo and it seems you were aligning more on the faucets themselves, which have offsets each, and not on the bases, which resulted in a shifted camera position. As my alignment suggestion might look slightly worse in the end, I strike my oppose. – Lucas ^T 08:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lucas. This object has none of the heat-sink-like perfection you are used to shooting. ;) It is old and wonky, none of the taps are straight or in their original positions and the sink is battered and askew. The locker room has been subjected to hundreds of tired welders and ironworkers since the 1930s so it was really a nightmare to find some camera position that rendered some sort of symmetry. I had to choose the lesser of at least twelve evils. You can probably see this in some of the other photos from the same series. Speaking of awkward camera positions, check out this snap for how I got the camera centered for the lockers! (result yet to be uploaded) :) --cart-Talk 11:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wilhelminenaue in winter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 19:42:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by El Grafo -- El Grafo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info OK, @W.carter, Martin Falbisoner, and Ikan Kekek: you called for it, so let's have some fun with this. This is the kind of picture I like to take just for myself and I had no intention of uploading it at Commons until … well, I'm just gonna blame it on those three mentioned before ;-) Somebody liked the view of that place well enough to drag a chair out into the shrubs, so I figured it might be worth a shot. So what do you all think (and please be blunt and honest)?
Info Before you all ask: Yes, I know it is quite grainy, and there are multiple reasons for that. First, it was taken on HP5+, which is a fast film with a classic (i.e. non-T-grain) emulsion and thus pretty grainy by default. Second, it was shot in common 35mm film format (a.k.a. "Full Frame"), which due to it's relatively small size has much more apparent grain than the Medium- or Large Format film studio portraits we all have grown to enjoy here. Third, it was snowing like crazy at that moment and it's difficult to determine what's grain and what's a snow flake in the distance :-p.
Support -- El Grafo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support I'll support this for the pleasantry that it presents, even though this level of grain is not normal on a non-pushed HP5 shot. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Neutral After reading Lucas' comment about the grain obscuring the snowfall I have to go neutral on this. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @KennyOMG: For what it's worth, this one is indeed much grainier than any other shot from that roll, so even though I don't know what kind of soup the lab cooked it in, I'm pretty sure they're not to blame for this. I'm still pretty new to film, so any ideas on what might have caused this are very welcome: while I actually consider the grain a feature rather than a bug for this image, I'd like to find out if this is something I can influence. Maybe it was under-exposed a bit and my scanner quasi-pushed it? --El Grafo (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are people around here who know much more about film than I do but yes, generally it pops out like this when you push the film either during development or scanning/printing. Normally it blends in fairly pleasantly with the rest of the image. Was looking for a full size scan but apparently don't have any with me right now. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually found one shot on HP5+ and uploaded, File:LHR_T5_early_morning.jpg. It's almost double the regular frame (24x65mm) and a softer scan but no work whatsoever besides that. The grain is apparent in medium greys but not in the whites like your the snow in your pic. Another thought is maybe you shot on expired film? -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it was fresh film, but comparing the camera settings of this shot with others from that day, it looks like it might be under-exposed by about one stop. I tend to under-expose a bit on digital to save the highlights – a habit that's counter-productive on film, where you should be more concerned about the shadows … --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support This is not bad at all! The graininess goes very well with the snowy dreamy landscape and the abandoned feel of the scene. The 'weak' in the support is only because of the vignetting (any chance of getting rid of that?) and it would have been better not to have the 7-9 twigs down left in front of the chair. A bit of analogue editing (such as holding those back with a foot) would have been better. If this is an example of what you do when we are not looking, I'd be happy to see more. :) This is artistic. --cart-Talk 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it, but I'm not sure how I would have voted if you hadn't given some background about the photo above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the composition sufficiently interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though some would disagree, I've come to believe, generally speaking, that there are two purposes of photography: photography for "technical purposes" and photography for art and aesthetics. Both are vital to one another, and usually, to some extent, the two cross with each other. Any accomplished photographer to some degree knows the technical side of photography, and most other people that own a camera probably strive to better learn it, though far less photographers consciously know or think about the "art side" of photography, and an even smaller minority of those people can actually work well with photography while treating it as art. Of course every good photographer thinks about their work, and can easily recognize a good image from a bad image or good composition versus bad composition, though less seem to think about stylistic choices to achieve effect, or simply just trying to break from the monotonous. I've only gotten into photography in the last couple of years, and don't remember a time when analog was considered superior to digital, though I've picked up the fact that when photographers shoot with actual film, they tend to think more about their image. I have an older Pentax film SLR that I've never used, and now after seeing this image on here, I too might order some film and try to give it a shot.

The photograph is very nice, and though there is grain, it doesn't feel that anything is lost, almost to the point where I don't even want to zoom in, I just like looking at it as a whole. Everything seems to work together, and the chair by itself is interesting in the natural scenery; reminds me (maybe because of the stenciled letters on the chair) of photos from World War II or the Vietnam War because of the film and grain, making it feel distant or far away. WClarke 00:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, my turn. Much has been said above already, so just a few inconherent thoughts. Every single "technical issue" here (as conventionally defined by our off-the-shelf voting patterns) is a major feature - not a bug. The picture wouldn't work for me, were it not for the heavy grain, vignetting, the spots and bruises of the film's surface. It conveys a feeling of wabi-sabi - although Bavaria's far from Nippon and Zen doesn't really accept the snugness of chairs. Bluntly speaking, a technically perfect image of a not so interesting chair in bad weather would be interesting maybe, but not much more. Another approach: When viewed at full screen, the picture appears almost a bit pointilistic - and thus pictorialist - which makes it a bold and determined atttempt at art. It could have been made around 1900. Only the contemporary chair doesn't fit at all, a striking punchline. Chapeau! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The scene with the chair is lovely and has storytelling potential, but the grain is more of detriment than a feature in my view, because it obscures whether there was actual snowfall at the time or not (there was, but it's made less visible). Better visible snowfall would have been a clear plus for the photo, and I can't personally substitute all that heavy film grain for snow. I never shot film, was too young for it, so I have no emotional connection, so these are my feelings with that. The grain doesn't add anything good to the image for me personally and as KennyOMG wrote it looks obsessively grainy and the photo might have been pushed too far in the processing per his comments. FP are the best of the best and I struggle to place this photo in this league. While I don't want to give too much importance to technical quality, in my view there is a point where technical flaws stand between the viewer and the scene itself, and I feel this has reached that point for me. – Lucas ^T 08:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "I don't even want to zoom in, I just like looking at it as a whole." (WClarke). I often take the sort of picture where I want you to zoom in all the way to 100% and explore it in minute detail. Other times, if you look at the photos at 100%, you're completely missing the point. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much going on in the background for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts and others. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still shoot film sometimes and love a bit of natural grain, but as others have noted, the grain is excessive here - beyond what I would consider an aesthetically pleasing amount. I won't pretend to know whether it was introduced during developing or scanning or digital processing, but it does detract from the image. I'm undecided on how I feel about the image as a whole, but I don't think it's fair to characterize concerns about technical quality as mere forest-for-the-trees pixel peeping in this case. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good to see that you're still shooting film. I've also recently taken some photos on 35mm HP5 film ([11], [12]) but the results were far from being as grainy as yours. I suppose there went anything wrong with the development. However, graininess is not really a thing for me as I like film grain a lot but I don't think that the photograph has sufficient wow for being FP. --Code (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail of pergola in vinyard.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 11:55:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other
Info All by me -- cart-Talk 11:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 11:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO, the subject is very boring; it just isn't interesting to look it, and the plain blue sky to me makes it worse. The technical quality is okay, though isn't perfect for FP, as the right edge of the image isn't sharp; also the trees in the background in the right bottom corner mess up the perspective for me. Sorry. WClarke 02:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per WClarke. – Lucas ^T 11:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --cart-Talk 12:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photoelasticity - Clear CD case centre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 21:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info The centre of a clear CD case (remember them?) The plastic is birefringent and demonstrates internal stress as coloured patterns (photoelasticity) when photographed using cross polarisation. The vertical black line at the bottom is a tiny crack that developed when the CD was removed from the case. The colours have not been enhanced in post-processing (just a modest increase in contrast). All by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously great! But why did you photostack 6 images here? The whole thing is rather flat... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To get this much magnification (the image is about 35mm across), the case is only a few cm from the front of my 30mm macro lens. The depth of field is less than 1mm and the feature is a few mm deep. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Doing strange things in the kitchen again, are you? ;-} --cart-Talk 21:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This time it was my study (which has the LCD monitor providing the polarised light). However, that room has carpet which means one needs to stand absolutely still while the 1/3s photo is taken. A hard floor is definitely better for macro. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support From a physicists view - the beauty of tension. From a photographic point of view - perfect (although I think I see some small spots outside the ring at about 7:30; see annotations). --PtrQs (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed more spots. -- Colin (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mesmerizing! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful AND useful !! Olivier LPB (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:PIA21465 - North Polar Layers.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 11:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and University of Arizona - uploaded by Philip Terry Graham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- Philip Terry Graham 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High resolution image depicting water ice layers in Planum Boreum, located in Mars' north polar region, a subject of deep scientific interest. -- Philip Terry Graham 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had this been a aerial photo of some canyon on Earth, I would simply have said that it was a beautiful, abstract of landforms. To be able to get these artistic images of another planet is simply mind-boggling. I suspect this is not just a regular photo, but somehow computer generated/enhanced, who cares, it is beautiful, interesting and intriguing. --cart-Talk 14:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @W.carter: it is a real photograph, taken by HiRISE, with the camera's IRB (infrared) filter. No computer generated magic, all real photographic data. :) Philip Terry Graham (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Philip, what can I say but WOW! :) --cart-Talk 10:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 13:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:North view of Charles Bridge from Mánesův most, Prague 20160808 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 00:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:DXR - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The crops on the left and right are arguable, and if you look at full size, not everything is totally sharp. However, look at the whole composition at the size that appears in full on your screen. It's like a beautiful 19th-century painting. The sky is beautiful, the view is beautiful, the reflections are beautiful, the colors are beautiful - everything is beautiful. And for that reason, I think this merits a star, although it would be for the good if DXR decides to sharpen things a bit, to make things more beautiful at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Ikan said, like a painting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 03:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect lighting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a pleasure to look to this photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --cart-Talk 10:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot for the nomination and nice words, Ikan Kekek! I personally quite like the picture, though I also came back from Prague with the impression that the lens did not really live up to my expectations. I sharpened the image a bit, though it probably is not possible to get the edges anywhere near perfect, and adding more sharpening would only bring artifacts. Still, I hope that the large size, overall image and good quality in the center make up for this flaw. --DXR (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you. Clearly, many of us do feel that way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again that bridge with all these people?? --Basotxerri (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done Vermeer... --Laitche (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 07:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 11:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Crepuscular ray of light in the north dome room of the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. The mosque, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is one of the oldest still standing buildings in Iran and it has been continuously changed its architecture since it was erected in 771 until the 20th century. All by me, Poc o² 11:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 11:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame there wasn't someone from the mosque standing to be lit by the ray of light. -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: Believe me, this one brought to me to the border of my patience. I was there almost one hour waiting for a free-of-tourits-shot. Poc o² 15:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, why did you wait an hour and not employ the multiple shots and averaging the tourists out later approach, or even manually masking them out? Were they standing at the same place the whole time? – Lucas ^T 16:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas: It was pure waiting time with my camera on the same spot, not processing or editing time. Generally a group came and people were standing for 15-20 minutes, and then another group came. I now what you talk about, but I am not sure whether that would have worked, because there was a very popular spot (the entrance where there was always people). I didn't think about taking multiples shot to sort people out because I was hoping again and again that in a few minutes it would be clear. Poc o² 16:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Classic. With very little change, I can imagine this as a 19th-century photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice picture but the flattened midtones do no justice to the walls. Which are kind of the point of this photo :( -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the crepuscular ray makes it worth it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excelente trabajo verdadeiramente una obra maestra tanto en calidad como iluminacion, composition. Muy bien lograda --The Photographer 22:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, gracias por expresar su opinión en español. -- Colin (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your spanish well written!. Sometime i leet spanish message to Poco because I know that his mother language is spanish, however, it could result impolite for the non spanish. --The Photographer 00:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, you can thank Google for that, as I don't speak a word. I refer to the recent conversation on Talk FPC. Why is it impolite for you to use your native language? One of us has to translate, and why should it be you? -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience google translator work better translating from some languate to english and not the opposite. Also, communication process could be easier using English only. I love my mother language because there are several words that otherwise i could not explain, however, I think that maybe English should be used because it's the universal language in Wikimedia commons (It's not like Wikipedia where the local language is used). In addition, people from English-speaking countries rarely learn/translate other languages (The same apply to french). Maybe using both languages could work, however, it would create visual noise --The Photographer 12:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rolltreppe Zeche Zollverein.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 07:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Others
Info Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex, Essen, Germany, escalator to former coal washing plant. This is one of my earlier photographic attempts that I had already nominated once (for a short time) some years ago. I've recently "rediscovered" the image and I still like it very much. There are some technical shortcomings of course, mainly due to the not really ideal aperture... I simply didn't have a ND filter back then. But I still find the picture very convincing, especially for its strong and very dynamic visual impact. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not wild on the perspective distortion. Charles (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, Charles, you're referring to the building in the background. Normally I'd agree. In this case, however, I beg to differ. The viewer is looking up, consequently lines are converging. A perpendicular angle might be possible, I guess, at least theoretically. But I'm not sure a perspective like that would really help the composition here. It may appear a bit unnatural then. When stepping on an escalator, people tend to look up (or down, coming from the opposite direction). Especially when keenly observing someone standing on the far end. And as this image is generally playing a bit with a couple of rather extreme contrasts, powerful colors, unusual shapes, and striking lines, the "distorted" background doesn't matter much, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the outward-leaning black posts actually. Charles (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's due to a perspective distortion. The general design here is rather wild... --Martin Falbisoner (talk)

Support iLike. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking enough that I don't mind the distortion. Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a really good composition. If the posts really lean this way and that, I have no reason to object to their being so depicted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well they might do in a trendy office/retail environment, but not a factory. I'd put my money (assuming a good day at the Cheltenham Races) on distortion... Charles (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The escalator doesn't belong to the original industrial complex! It was built when they turned the facility into a trendy museum. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 23:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very special photo Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Entzia - Hayas Txumarregi 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 17:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even the individual elements of the picture, the leafless forest below, the hills afar and the trees on the rocky outcrop work perfectly by themselves, together it's just wonderful. It's the kind of photo that doesn't immediately grab the viewer by the eyeballs but the more one looks at it the more one likes it. The only thing I'd try to do is soften the trees on the second rock - currently the prominent branches pop out too prominently while the others blend nicely with the background. I quickly blurred them in PS with the blur tool @ 15% and methinks it looks better. /nitpicking -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could wish for a non-crop of the trees, but that is just a minor thing. Could also agree with KennyOMG about the blurring, that would bring out the "human profile" (can you see it?) on the rock better --cart-Talk 20:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi cart, as I always do, I really appreciate your opinion, so I've tried to put a series of radial unsharpness filters around the "face" but technically the result doesn't convince me and it doesn't convince me either from the "ethical photographer's" point of view. IMO this would be too much modification of reality so please forgive that I won't upload a new version. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo, your photo, your rules. It was a minor thing. :) --cart-Talk 22:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, the composition look unbalanced to me. There is too much visual weight on the top left, and the shadow on the bottom left is also unattractive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 04:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't actually mind that this particular image is unbalanced; one of those "rules are made for breaking" cases. It gives me a sense of how much the rocks stick out relative to their surrounds. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Thennicke. The crop illustrate the un-balance between the massive rocks on the left and the nothingness on the right. --Pugilist (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucifermeisje (Matchstick girl).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 13:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Floris Arntzenius - uploaded by oSeveno - nominated by OSeveno -- oSeveno (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- oSeveno (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about the close crop on the bottom of her crutch. Is this the full painting? lNeverCry 18:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been some crop at the bottom at least since part of the signature is also cut, but then again, the painting could have been remounted at some point. --cart-Talk 18:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems unlikely anyone would cut the signature. Where's the frame? I suspect photo has been cropped not the painting. Charles (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending resolution of the signature issue (Maybe it got affected by the same thing that has affected Charles' signature recently? ). Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been compared to many things, but never to an art work!! Charles ([[User talk:Charlesjsharp|talk
You are correct, some of the signature is missing. I missed that. The museum cropped the photo. I found an other, smaller picture that shows the frame, which confirms it. It has a lower resolution though. (753x1200p) Should I withdraw the nomination ? --oSeveno (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest withdrawing it. You're not going to get an FP for an incomplete version of a painting. It's too bad though - this is a great painting. She has just the same look I used to have when I was working, especially on busy Monday mornings. lNeverCry 04:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Small red damselflies (Ceriagrion tenellum) mating female typica.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 22:07:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info When you are only 30 mm long and you live in a heathland bog, at least you can have some fun for a few days in August. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well captured. Which one is of which sex? You might add that information to your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very conventional sex. Male on top. Have added annotations. Charles (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very effective image. -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --The Photographer 12:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Episkopi 01-2017 img11 Kourion.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 00:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by A.Savin. Nominated instead of withdrawn Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Episkopi 01-2017 img12 Kourion.jpg. --A.Savin 00:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 00:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer the other picture, for reasons I could go into, but this is also a beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even more impressive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, even better! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good DR, interesting foreground and striking sunrays! – Lucas ^T 08:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support much more interesting and balanced composition. Charles (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 14:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was this taken with a GND filter? It looks overprocessed to me because the foreground appears noticably brighter than the background, giving the appearance that shadows were lifted too much. However, if you used a GND that would make sense -- Thennicke (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, only Lightroom filter. --A.Savin 13:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow --Pudelek (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Jardín de Fin, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 17.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 22:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info View of one of the domes of the Kushak located in the center of Fin Garden, city of Kashan, Iran. The site, a historical Persian garden, was completed in 1590 and is the oldest garden in Iran. Its bath was the scene of the murder of Amir Kabir, the Qajarid chancellor. All by me, Poc o² 22:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - More Iranian treasure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fabulous detail. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Che12Guevara (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:London MMB »0H3 Canary Wharf.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 16:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Mattbuck - uploaded by Mattbuck - nominated by Pkbwcgs -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting enough. Charles (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Charles. It is very pleasant but lacks wow. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm going to buck the opposition on this one, too. I find this a very good form to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a part of an otherwise possibly featurable image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It looks like a painting. Nice reflection. However, it lacks wow, as others said above. Still good though. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monasterio de Cocos, Rumanía, 2016-05-28, DD 88-90 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 04:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This would be the second FP of this monastery after File:Monasterio de Cocos, Rumanía, 2016-05-28, DD 67-69 HDR.jpg, a very different view. I love this painting of the Last Supper and mosaic of (correct me if I'm wrong) the Death of the Virgin Mary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail. -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 13:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, thank you Ikan, a magic place... Poc o² 16:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puente Internacional de Tuy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 11:52:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Harpagornis - uploaded by Harpagornis - nominated by Harpagornis -- Harpagornis (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Harpagornis (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that photographically, it would have been better to focus on the metal structure for an abstract (as you did in this photo), which could be done by taking a square crop out of this one. The rectangular sunlit patches are a bit disappointing given that other photos show a nice diagonal pattern that matches the sides. The quality lacks sharpness, contrast and there's colour noise throughout that is visible to me even at screen resolution. Unlike luminance noise, colour noise doesn't really disappear with downsampling, but is usually quite easy to reduce in software. It sort of looks like you turned off colour noise reduction, or under-exposed and had to raise the exposure a lot in post. Do you have the raw file to process it better? ISO 500 wasn't really necessary here as your shutter speed is two stops higher than required for a hand-held shot. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Harpagornis, why did you place the vanishing point (/"center") of the view slightly off-center? I'm curious for your reason(s). I would have placed the camera perfectly in the center and make a perfectly symmetrical shot of the scene, why did you not? – Lucas ^T 17:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I can see why you didn't just crop into the center like the other photo—to keep the lit spots—but there's too much of the stone walls to not offset the metallic part. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin & Daniel. lNeverCry 04:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 04:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Mathematical surface which the boundaries are the trefoil knot (24 photos stacked, focus and exposition stacking) created by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very impressive and will be delighted to support, but please check my annotations. Charles (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Charles. Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp and Daniel Case: could you check it now? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 14:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support sorted. Charles (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joalpe (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom half is not well-lit due to the use of the black reflective surface. I don't see the point in the black surface since it is too dark to provide an interesting reflection -- it would need to be lit much brighter than this to compensate. There are still some errors in the focus stacking, which I'm not convinced is the best choice of technique for a 3D form like this -- the gentle blur with distance would provide some depth clues which are missing. (Not that keen on the colour.) -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the issue. About dof, there are better ways to give the idea of three-dimensionality, contrast, for example, this harsh light have this role here; and you (plural) complain a lot about the lack of dof... The colour, is the colour of the object, and your problem... Reflex, the original is just 0.5 stop darker than the object, someone, probably you, complained in the pass about the competition between reflex and object, I'll not remove the reflex, if you want, this is a free image, you can create your own. Thanks for your time. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 23:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reflection is about 4 stops darker than the object, not 0.5 stops. Or are you saying you deliberately darkened it? Yes, opinions vary about DoF and whether the whole object needs to be in focus. I'm just not finding the light, on the shiny surface, to be particularly helpful in demonstrating the 3D. If one wants a perfect image, sharp from front to back, demonstrating a mathematical form, then why not just render it in a computer? -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin did you open the file page? This is a part of digitalisation project, we are filming, photographing, and with the help of community, improving mathematical articles around this objects. Some pieces we are render in a computer, some pieces we are taking files that able print objects in a 3D printer. My paper is to photograph, as the best I can, this is part of the agreement. And I darkened it deliberately as a result of complains on other similar objects evaluated here, saying that the reflex derail the attention of the object, that is why this it is so dark. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 01:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you darkened it too much. Why show a full reflection if not for it to add something? I think it is so dark here that much of the frame is taken up by something you can barely see. If you take a square crop, say, then you have a little reflection (which I'd still lighten compared to this) that indicates the object is on a reflective surface but doesn't take up so much dominance in the frame. My comment about computer rendering is that by taking a photo stack to achieve front-to-back sharpness, you end up with something closer to a computer render than a photo. It isn't actually sharp front-to-back, and the lighting isn't great imo, so I think you've not succeeded in demonstrating "photography" wrt models. If there was demonstrable relatively shallow depth of focus, and clever lighting, then you could achieve something that is more like photography. And if you added something natural, like a fabric, wood, fur, skin, sky, water, etc, then you might get some nice contrast between a pure mathematical model and an impure world. It's your project, of course, but computer images are often boring because the are too simply rendered, so why emulate that in a photo when you can do better? -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, although I agree with Colin about the color... but that is not a problem since this is the kind of image that is so easy to convert into any color you like. I'm very tempted to upload some versions of it just because of the cool form. :) --cart-Talk 18:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As always. ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Doorweekt blad van Cyclamen hederifolium na langdurige motregen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 06:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Myrsinaceae.
Info Soaks leaves of Cyclamen hederifolium after protracted drizzle in March. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although it is quite similar to this FP. I guess they have grown a bit here? :) --cart-Talk 12:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: This cyclamen is in the same forest path but in a very different place. The leaves have a different design, are smaller in stature and many masaler present. The plant is also older than the previous one.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we really need two of these? Charles (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: the leaves have different designs and colors. The size of the blade is also different. The Cyclamen hederifolium seedlings are often selected on those differences. These pictures show how Fascinating nature can be.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate support, per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7...(the original! ) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's very enjoyable to move my eyes around the picture frame. This is actually quite a complex composition, with all the living leaves and all the dead leaves facing in different directions and many of them having quite different shapes, so this could be considered a "busy" composition that works well. But then I often like complexity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your comments. It was quite a puzzle to determine the correct position of the recording, because I did not want to disturb the environment and decayed branch also wanted to have the picture.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Elburgo - Bosque y campo 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again I've chosen B&W for an image because in this one the yellow-brown field is very interesting while B&W permits to raise the contrast between lines, field, leafless woodland and the sky. The image note gives an idea of the coloured view. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure if it was lens resolving power or a side-effect of the bw conversion but almost all detail is lost in the small trees where small branches are supposed to be. The sharp contours of the shadows are in stark contrast with this dreamy quality, which almost looks like a soft focus effect. A bigger problem is my brain is just not buying the image as a whole. Too much is going on in the midtones; the image as a whole doesn't have enough contrast to be interesting and comes across as "flat". It's a nice play with the lines both on the ground and in the sky but still falls short. -- KennyOMG (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kenny. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Basotxerri (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inhabitants of the blue city 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 22:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Morocco, Chefchaouen. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work for me. -- KTC (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 04:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 05:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. I can't see anything effective in the picture. -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, but not FP. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lion look.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 08:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info Lion in Tsavo West national park, Kenya. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over-processed - look at the tail. Charles (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I think you need to check why your signature is not displaying your name. This is not the first time it dissapears. Or at least add you name manually to the timestamp if you see that it is missing. --cart-Talk 12:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. Charles (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles. The photo looks strange to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. And even if that weren't an issue, I'd want to have cropped out so much of the unused space elsewhere in the image (unless the idea is to suggest the photographer had time to get away ). Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Daniel. --cart-Talk 20:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 05:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patrouille Suisse Northrop F-5E Tiger II ILA Berlin 2016 13.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 11:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 11:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 11:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whites are burnt Ezarateesteban 12:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ezarate: Technically not, but admittedly, the detail was hardly visible. I darkened the area a bit. — Julian H.^✈ 12:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very impressive work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In this case, I love the motion blur of the background, because it really makes me feel the speed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support better now Ezarateesteban 16:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And again an impressive aircraft picture! Keep on with thoses panning pictures. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 22:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piling on – Lucas ^T 14:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Distribution board and wall in workshop.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 20:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Sweden
Info Many of the features in old industrial buildings have a sculptural look to them, like this distribution board. I'm also intrigued by looking at these almost abandoned places. Some people may see them only as dirty, scruffy-looking places, but I see every dirty fingerprint, dent and scratch as memories of all those people who has worked there over the years. -- cart-Talk 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could swear I see some barrel distortion but meh. Cool nevertheless. -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting, almost abstract. But why all the focus stacking?--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because my camera is not as good as yours. ;) The light conditions were very bad and I wanted to sort of document the whole wall in the way you do with a work of art, with each part as sharp as possible. The only way for me to do that was to divide the wall into nine sections for my focus point, plus two more for the different levels on the fuse boxes. I know my camera's limitations and I have to be innovative to compensate for them. --cart-Talk 10:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oic, thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support You see things in the world similarly to how I see things. WClarke 20:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for spoiling the party but sadly it doesn't work for me. The switchbox is too small in the frame to fully appreciate the details you are talking about and the empty wall is just too boring for me. Not saying that I need explosions there, but as it is I can't appreciate it enough for FP. If everything would be a bit older and/or worn then maybe, showcasing more human influence over time. The flat light doesn't help the atmosphere, yes this is normal at the place, but photographically it's a detriment for me. A well aligned photograph of an industrial wall which I can't get enough enjoyment out of. – Lucas ^T 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. We all perceive the world differently and I know this is not for everyone. :) --cart-Talk 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Makes a nice abstract pattern. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I basically agree with Lucas on this. I've lived with this photo since you nominated it, and my reaction really hasn't wavered: "OK, it's a scuffed gray wall with some stuff on the left side". Now had you focused more narrowly on the switchbox, that might have interested me enough to vote for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others - I neither understand the composition, nor am I wowed by this in any way --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Karelj (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Ermell (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I'd better get this out if sight since it is so offensive to so many users. --cart-Talk 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown-eared bulbul at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 22:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd suggest a marginal crop on the left side, but it's not my picture and it's quite a good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compared to most animal photography, this stood out more to me. Though the image was taken with a fast shutter speed, for whatever reason the water looks a lot smoother than what would be expected, as if it was taken with a slower shutter speed, which makes for a very interesting result. Also, as Ikan mentioned, it might be worth seeing what a tighter crop on the left side would look like; the crop is already so close to being a square that it makes the rectangular crop right now seem somewhat irregular. WClarke 02:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume much processing of the water. Charles (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles : I uploaded Non-crop 1280px version, You can see all processing on http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't get your link to work. Charles (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles: Input this URL and click View Image Data. --Laitche (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not on my PC. Charles (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, Laitche! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd clone out the little brighter thing on the right Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the colors and the pose. Daniel Case (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A simple excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Butorides virescens stalking.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 02:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a great moment to capture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The stick in front bothers me a little, but the bird is sharp and it's in action, so that makes up for the stick just a bit. lNeverCry 03:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The definition is not so good, it is very grainy, and the stick is very unfortunate. The real-life colours are brighter than shown here - this image would be a much better candidate for FP. @INeverCry: The bird is not 'in action'. The heron waits motionless, it is not stalking as the title suggests. Charles (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the birds behavior do us non-bird-savvy. Although, I would agree that this bird is "in action" much the same way as a sniper is, waiting on a hill, drawing a bead on his target, even if he is motionless. --cart-Talk 11:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The definition is superior to the en:wp FP Charles links (one needs to downsample 70% to get the birds to be the same size based on beak length, and the other image has had too much NR which has considerably reduced the detail especially in the head). I think the fact that the bird is hunting compensates for the stick. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the intensity of the pic transcends the mere 'identify species' part. This is like a Hiroshige wood print capturing a moment (or several) before the strike. --cart-Talk 11:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Am I the only one who thinks that stick sticking up is fine? I think it makes the form more interesting (for example, by complementing the branch that is slanting the other way), and it doesn't block view of the bird in any important way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Yeah, I'd say you're alone with the crickets on that one... lNeverCry 06:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>chirp-chirp< --cart-The Cricket 11:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hunedoara Castle (Vajdahunyadi vár) by Pudelek.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 20:21:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful -- Thennicke (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Postcard perfect; great composition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and light. --Laitche (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hand and power stone bracelets.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 02:51:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great resolution, and I like the composition. My criticisms are marginal, but I still think that for FP, cleaning up little bits of dirt that we can see at full size is a reasonable expectation. So would you consider this cosmetic digital improvement? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the box smoking? What kind of box is it? My first thought is perhaps it's a box to put a pipe in, but who puts their pipe away smoking? The interference of the smoke with her index finger looks iffy to me. If someone can explain this to me, I might support this. lNeverCry 06:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry, it looks like a very ordinary incense box with the peace symbol and everything. This is something that goes very well with the power-stone bracelet in the New Age philosophy that many women are into these days. There are shops all over Sweden for items like these. The categories for the file were pretty awful though, I've fixed them. --cart-Talk 11:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek I can´t find the dirt you are taking about, except the skin flakes on the thumb... and in that particular case I would leave it as is, a little wabi-sabi... INeverCry thanks for fixing categories. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not that. That's fine. Look at the paper at full size, and you'll see dark spots on it, below her hand. Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, as your photo is at quite a high magnification. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek you are picky! But yes, the ashes needed to go. Done and thanks. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and my Support for this unusual nominee. Very nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good quality, interesting and different. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and clean now. :) --cart-Talk 10:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP to me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different --The Photographer 16:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very different from what we usually see here ... it makes me want to know what the story is, for I know there is a story. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case there is a little story... I was photograping the bracelets made by a friend of mine, stricktly catalog-type images for her web page and my daughter walked in... we started talking about displaying the bracelets on a model and doing some experimenting with the few resources we had at hand, and trying to manage the scale issue, the visual elements and so on, and this is one of the images that came out. More important, however, are the problems that this type of photography poses with regards to scale, ambience, etc. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 21:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is goo. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:PIA11178 - The Contrasting Colors of Crater Dunes and Gullies.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Jet Propulsion Laboratory, University of Arizona - uploaded by Philip Terry Graham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High-resolution view of gullies on Mars, subjects of scientific intrigue and investigation, by HiRISE, a camera I'm sure everyone here loves. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not the absolute greatest composition, perhaps, but who cares? Fascinating. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Visually striking beyond any thoughts of composition. lNeverCry 06:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Straight into my wallpaper collection – Lucas ^T 20:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Žadvainių ežeras.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 17:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Mindaugas Macaitis - uploaded by Mindaugas Macaitis - nominated by Hugo.arg -- Hugo.arg (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hugo.arg (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,too small for my taste --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but per Livio. --Laitche (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Livio. lNeverCry 22:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Very nice photo, but it's just above the absolute minimum size, and we've been featuring photos that look equally great but are multiple times the size of this, therefore with much more detail. Nominate at QIC, where this will be a very good QI, albeit almost too small there, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:MD BOUALAM.South Mediterranean El-maghreb 16.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 11:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created and uploaded by محمد بوعلام عصامي - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm assuming this is a long-exposure photograph. If so, I'm willing to forgive some sharpness issues. Even then, when viewed at 100%, the quality of the image is great for a >5000px length long-exposure image. It's a nice view with a very useful insight to the flow of water on this rock shelf – one of the many benefits of long-exposure photography of water. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the people were moving. Charles (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The moving people, and their motion, are a very small part of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, as it's quite interesting. The exposure time is shown as 10 seconds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 18:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but lack of sharpness (diffraction with f/22) is too much for me. --Ivar (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with stack technics we could have the sharpness in the rock and people, and still having the smooth water, that is not that smooth, especially in the bottom. I know that we should encourage photos of this rare location for us, however should be better for FP. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 01:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long-exposure waves are inherently beautiful; I don't see anything in this composition that sets it apart. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern Argentina and Chile.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by Envisat satellite, European Space Agency - uploaded by Revent - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 19:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 19:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing to distinguish it from any other satellite photo. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree. And very tight crop of the continent's east and west coasts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. As far as images of Earth from space go, this one isn't among the best; there's very little detail relative to how much terrain is included, and it seems badly oversharpened. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination three days without participation, three opposes, very few possibilities to success Ezarateesteban 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Камени гробници на необичните карпи на Маркови Кули.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 13:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Petrovnik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just too random for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? "Stone tombs and a rock in the shape of lizard, Marko's Towers, Prilep, Macedonia"? Is this historically significant, or art, or just weird rocks? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Well, this stone formation is just one part of the place known as Markovi Kuli or Marko's Towers, which is an IUCN Category III natural monument and is listed on the tentative list of UNESCO world heritage sites.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Daniel. The stone formation is interesting, but there's nothing that stands out about the presentation. lNeverCry 04:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Панорама на Гари 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 00:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning to the left, can you correct? -- KennyOMG (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the detail on the white houses is lost. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DIG14022 017.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 16:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Jay Godwin - uploaded by Blazoaustin - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 16:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 16:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seems like a forced expression to me, so I don't find it an outstanding portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Flat lighting, weird angle, not a very flattering expression as noted above. Also, while correctable, the description should probably give some indication of who this individual is. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. The bokeh on the right is unflattering too. lNeverCry 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but for me only a random "snapshot". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crops on top and bottom and completely unhelpful filename (I have long been a fan of hers, but I had to look at the description to find out this was a picture of her). Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ■ MMXX ^talk 14:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rusting chairs.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 05:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The chairs relate in an interesting way to each other as if they were two people. I like the form, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice but IMHO, too much ISO noise for a FP, can you reduce it? Ezarateesteban 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange composition --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Трамвај на Таксим.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 13:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice motif, but not outstanding, due to dull light and diffuse focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition and image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a whole I think this is a nice photograph, though the quality is lacking, especially in the background. Do you know what post-processing was done to this photograph, if any? To me it looks like some in-camera filter was used, though I'm not completely sure. If another copy without post-processing exists, this photograph could maybe be salvaged. WClarke 05:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @WClarke: What you are describing as "lack of quality" is actually out of focus due to depth of field. The image has been post processed, in terms of color grading and levels. There are no in camera filters. I do keep the RAW file, of course.--Petrovskyz (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juskaiciai II.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 17:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Mindaugas Macaitis - uploaded by Mindaugas Macaitis - nominated by Hugo.arg -- Hugo.arg (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hugo.arg (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would be great - if resolution were much higher --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,for Martin --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Lower resolution than 2 million pixels. --Laitche (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grabkapelle auf dem Württemberg Stuttgart Rotenberg 2015 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 18:46:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Julian H.^✈ 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Excellent quality. I like the little bird on the right side of the cross. --Code (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The bilateral angling strikes me a bit funny, but that's probably the only way to effectively capture the chapel, and the photo gives me a feeling of peace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is too wide for a rectilinear perspective. There's strong distortion (warping and stretching), which is noticable in the bowls (not sure what they are). -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 22:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An ~~angle of view of 84 degrees~~ is not too wide for rectilinear projection (there are rectilinear lenses such as the Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 that can produce 108 degree horizontal field of view and I have made similarly wide panoramas). However, a rectilinear projection of such width should be used sparingly and carefully. Also, moving trees/misalignment of frames have caused some ghosting on the foliage on the left and right edges in addition to the extreme loss of resolution caused by the rectilinear projection. dllu (t,c) 00:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently each of the 3 frames was 84 degrees wide, not the full panorama. I'm not sure how much overlap there was between those frames, but a rule of thumb in my opinion is to avoid rectilinear images with more than 120 degree horizontal field of view. dllu (t,c) 00:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

120 degrees is equivalent to a 12mm lens on full frame, which is about as wide as you get for rectilinear lenses and pretty extreme. The EXIF data says 130 degrees for the FOV but if that comes from Hugin, then it doesn't take into account any cropping. It is architectural features such as circular or cylindrical objects, and people, where the eye gets most upset by the distortion. The solution is only to get further back from the subject, if that is possible. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I like super-wide rectilinear stuff. But I would personally crop more closely to the building - cut out the tree on the right and the sign on the left. Sharpness at the sides is not the best, and this would reduce that problem. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews. I do see the problem with too much distortion at the edges here. Getting further away is not easy as it's located on a hill, but I'll definitely try since the location is not too far away from where I live. — Julian H.^✈ 12:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kosciuszko Main Range from Charlotte Pass 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 12:35:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The Kosciuszko Main Range and Snowy River as seen from Charlotte Pass lookout, NSW Australia.
Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On first look I wanted to oppose, then thought about it and was actually writing about why I support it. Something felt off, still, so after taking a good look at it again I noticed that indeed the foreground is sunlit. This is a problem because the contrast for the whole image just doesn't work. One would rightfully expect the sun lit leaves to be much brighter, the grass to be more saturated, and the whole scene to have more life in it in general. However! If this is indeed a faithful representation of how it looked in reality and not an "artistic choice" (ie ps work) I'm prepared to retract my oppose and even change it to support. If the look is indeed a choice then sorry, I don't like it. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a cloudy day, so no direct sunlight was involved - what you may be perceiving is that the vegetation actually changes in the distance to a darker shade, with mosses and bog. This is as faithful to reality as I could make it, I assure - I am not a fan of overprocessed images. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the foreground. The people walking and the tree next to them have a semi-definied shadow, but the branches closer to the camera cast a clearly defined, dark shadow on other branches. The overall effect looks like someone pulled the highlights down a lot, which pushes it to surreal category in my head. Otherwise I like both the comp and the atmosphere of the upper part of the image. In any case (unfortunately) I think it won't matter much whether I strike this oppose or not. :\ -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I like the composition with the 3 streams, and I think it would be featurable in the right light, but in my opinion, not in this gray light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, as an Australian, where it is almost always sunny, this kind of light is actually special to me (and emblematic of our rare alpine ecosystems), but I understand your perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand yours, too. When I visited London during the summer in 2010, when my girlfriend and I were hanging out with a Londoner, he specially picked a sunny table for us to sit at, whereas in New York, we always seek out shade. It's all a matter of perspective. But I'd love to see this view during a sunset or sunrise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose While I love the idea of matching an atypical landscape for an area with atypical light, especially when said atypical light is actually more typical of that landscape where it is more common, this comes out just too flat, with detail hard to distinguish. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Japanese Municipal São Paulo Market, Brazil.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 16:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- The Photographer 16:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Not Wow, I understand the message --The Photographer 16:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flatirons Sunrise.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 22:53:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Thcipriani - uploaded by thcipriani - nominated by Thcipriani -- Thcipriani (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thcipriani (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing photo, terrible quality. If you upload a 100% crop with less sharpening etc will support. -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kenny. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I will resubmit a crop without sharpening/editing Thcipriani (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elisabeth niggemann.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 14:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Stephan Jockel - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 14:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 14:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too much brightness/white, and some feels blown or at least kind of glary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good background. lNeverCry 22:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much light on her top for FP, though I'd probably be OK with it as a QI. Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Famiglia Mancini, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 16:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by -- The Photographer 16:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very visually striking. If you tried sharpening it further, would that ruin the photo? I ask because I don't know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rollbacked the noise reduction, let me know if it is more sharpen for you :) --The Photographer 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much more uniform now. Before, there were places that were noisy and/or unsharp. Now, it's all noisy. :-) It's quite an interesting photo, though. I'll live with it and see how I react to it later. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I might've liked to have seen the full fountain, but visually striking and very colorful nonetheless. lNeverCry 18:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, do you have a picture with the full fountain? It looks a bit odd Charles (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Charles and Ikan Kekek --The Photographer 18:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ordinarily I might find this cluttered, but in this case I love the contrasting warm and cool colors. I will also forgive the noise because if it took ISO 4000 to make this work, that's what it took. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely clutter! So this is what your new camera can do. :) You are off to a good start. --cart-Talk 23:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This camera is actually amazing, however, maybe this picture is not the better example (this picture was taken in low light conditions and without tripod). I was walking over the street and I saw that beautiful shoot in a restaurant. There are some things I still can not understand in the camera, however, I'm slowly learning. The camera is considerably lighter and its small appearance hides a great power. I must confess that I feel like an 8 year old boy receiving a gift --The Photographer 11:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too noisy, and the focus seems to be wrong, in the back wall, not in the middle, or in fountain, the framing is not good, the lack of the bottom of the fountain creates a weirdness, and you could go to 1/18 s hand-held with this lens... The method to sharping was not good, highly increased the noise in a very noisy picture. There is CR in the mirror, and other artifacts in almost all lamps. And in the edges have distortions referent to the 18mm lens. Most of it you can improve.

And this is a opinion, I would prefer a restaurant in service, crowd, with people, movement, especially a cantina.

Keep shooting. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea!, let me print 40 pages of forms to ask permission for each people in the restaurant --The Photographer 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you request for the homeless? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 20:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support convincing and well executed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reluctantly, now that composition is good - it's just too grainy (check out the table on the left). Charles (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually, I think you got the NR about right the first time (perhaps could go a little less) but removed too much of it now and so noise is quite visible without really gaining any sharpness or detail. While NR can removed detail, sometimes there just isn't any more to get, and I find the original sharp enough. Is there any chance to take a photo with a tripod? I'd prefer a version with more NR, closer to to your first version (though with the full fountain). But as a whole, the image is great. -- Colin (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin, thanks for your noise critique. I asked permission to take a photograph, however, it was not allowed to use a tripod. I had only one opportunity to make this photo before the people arrived. BTW, I applied more NR, please, let me know what do you think. --The Photographer 13:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the new version is a good balance between the original and the noisier one. For example, the striped shirt of the man in the mirror is better defined than the first version. However, the map seems to have lost some detail compared to other versions. It's not a big deal, but I know you like to get it right. -- Colin (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent critique, let me see how improve it this weekend. I love your critiques (support or oppose) because you not only show me the problem, you are trying to explain me how fix it. Thanks a lot. --The Photographer 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I rollbacked to the first version adding the bottom (recomendation by Charlesjsharp) and sharpening (recomendation by Ikan Kekek) --The Photographer 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this is probably the best version, overall, but there are some disconcertingly smudgy areas on the fountain, and while the composition is definitely interesting, I'm not totally convinced by it. Therefore, I'm glad you took this photo, but I will remain neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - We can play NR/sharpening tug-of-war until the cows come home but on the whole, it's a fine image. I think this is one of those cases others have been talking about recently where you've missed the point if you're measuring noise at 100% magnification in a shadow in a corner. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --anghy (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much denoising and resharpening--Ermell (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 02:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iceland - 2017-02-22 - Gullfoss - 3684.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 23:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by User:PierreSelim - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How about a winter waterfall? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And here I thought PierreSelim was just a simple oversighter... lNeverCry 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From time to time I visit nice places (and I try to have my camera in my backpack) :) --PierreSelim (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of my bucket list destinations... and judging by what's going on at the parking lot in the background, it doesn't appear that I'm alone in that respect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -However, I would brighten it about half to one stop. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it too dark. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Wouldn't you expect winter in Iceland to be dark? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is relative; you wouldn't expose a bright and sunny day using the same settings as you would for a cloudy day. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the result should still be darker than a bright, sunny day, to be true to how it actually looked and felt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but here it really is exposed as if it were a bright, sunny day: 1/640s at f/8 at ISO 200. I usually shoot at f/8, 1/250s, ISO 100 on a sunny day, so this is in fact 1/3 stop less than a typical sunny exposure, which combined with the lower amount of light produces an image that is too dark for my tastes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great find Ikan! (if a little unsharp/too much NR) -- Thennicke (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks. I saw it at QIC recently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for this clear FP. Excellent composition, contrast and moment --The Photographer 16:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 20:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laguna Colorada, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 71-73 PAN.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 21:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Laguna Colorada, Bolivia. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Michelvincenzo (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michelvincenzo (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, thank you for the nom Michelvincenzo Poc o² 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty awesome (=awe-inspiring, not merely "great") panorama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great scene; you can also see the flamingos if you zoom in. WClarke 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the virgas in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mute swans (Cygnus olor) and cygnets.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 21:14:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Mute swans mate for life and the female produces from 4-10 eggs. She lays one every 12-24 hours. Both parents look after the cygnets. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ lNeverCry 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking support per concerns detailed below. When am I gonna learn to just wait for Colin to vote first?

lNeverCry 04:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice picture. Can you identify the swan and the cob from sight? If so, please note in your file description which is which. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

female on the left (smaller) - I've added annotations. Charles (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Love the contrast -- Thennicke (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lyrical. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Thennicke and Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per others, great contrast. – Lucas ^T 08:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

after reading Colin's comments, I agree that the greyscale conversion is too far from reality for me as well, so I strike the support. – Lucas ^T 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is one of those selective-colour black-and-white photos. Such processing must be documented on the image page per the criteria. Compare the original version, which has colour showing the brown feathers of the birds. I'd prefer if the colour version had this filename, and the B & W & orange version had a different filename, so that our users were clear they were choosing a processed "arty" photo and could still choose one that represents nature's colours. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the retouched picture template to the file page. Didn't think it was needed for the editing I'd done. Colin is (understandably) mistaken as to the editing process. The original version I uploaded had brown feathers as a result of poor editing. As everyone knows, adult swans don't have brown feathers. I caused the grey by too aggressive reduction of blown highlights! Charles (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements are that "extensive manipulations" "should be clearly described " using the template parameter. It isn't sufficient just to mark the image as "retouched". How am I "mistaken" when you say you did a "BW conversion of the background". Your explanation of the near global desaturation of the scene (including the birds but excluding the orange) due to "too aggressive reduction of blown highlights" isn't credible, and contradicted by your comment below. There are natural real-world midtone greens and browns that have vanished. The green pond water has miraculously turned into black ink. The cynets have lost their natural colour, and adult swans may be generally white but their head and neck are often dirty coloured (see also this and this). The head and neck of an adult swan is a warm white, whereas these look like they've been washed in Persil. I have never in my life seen greyscale swans. This is not the sort of honest photography we require at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ It has all the proper elements of a good photo, but yet the wow of it eludes me. There is a lack of spark in the photo and the black water looks more like mottled asphalt than a mysterious tern with white fluffy stuff. Perhaps it is the result of the partial BW conversion. Sorry. --cart-Talk 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left in the mottled water as I felt that was a key part of the picture. It wasn't affected by the BW conversion of the background which purely eliminated the green sheen on the water which I didn't like. It is of course supposed to represent family harmony, so 'spark' isn't likely! Charles (talk)

To clarify, a 'spark', can also include the feeling of joy/content/bliss/tranquility that goes with family harmony. This just doesn't have that for me. --cart-Talk 15:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 'spark' version. --cart-Talk 12:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you've done but it looks good @W.carter: . If you would like to upload and replace, that would be great. Charles (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What I did was I took the best of the "shades" from both the BW and the color version (since I didn't have the RAW), converted it (except for the beaks) to B&W. Then, as with all B&W conversions, you need much more "contrast", but not in the conventional sliding the lever thing, rather I upped all the highlights even more and darkened the shadows plus added extra light on some grey areas. Working with it I was thinking that I wanted the photo to look like the swans were floating free in a black starry sky. (Artsy bullshit, I know, but it sort of works.) Ok, I'll upload it over your version (scary!) but you can always revert. --cart-Talk 17:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Move my vote, since I like this version better. You may want to hear what the rest of the gang has to say. Cheers, --cart-Talk 17:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your version is super! I love the bright white feathers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the pics. You edit them. Please........ ps do @Colin: @PtrQs: like what cart has done? Charles (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you wanna make my day-job my hobby too? --cart-Talk 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Think of it as a public service. 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

~~Weak oppose~~ As cart mentioned above, by BW conversion the shiny look of the feathers is gone. In color they look brown, but shimmering, whereas in BW the lack of color creates a dull grey. Maybe is is poosible to augment the brown part of the color spectrum (channel?) in the conversion a bit to preserve the nice shiny look? On the other side I feel some lack of balance, as the vertical center lies not on the 'family' but between the swans and their weaker mirrored pictures. This effect is stronger in the full screen view. --PtrQs (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support With cart's version both my concerns have vanished, as the current one even looks more balanced with the tighter crop --PtrQs (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I rather like a full color version. It also seems that the whites are blown out. Yann (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Roma).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already had a similar candidate here which didn't pass. The main critizism there was that the WB was too cool. This picture here has the same issue. Besides that, I think this one lacks contrast and saturation. Additionally a geocode is missing and the description is far from being sufficient for FP. What do we see? Who painted the frescoes? When were they painted? I still don't get it why you never add an Italian description. You're a native speaker and a description in a second language could be very useful for a lot of users. Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion. --Code (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WB,contrast and saturation are perfect. Geocode and the descripiption is the same of all my other FP however, I do not consider you an objective person as you know.Plus you are so offensive and naive that you think there isn't work behind? Only a camera on a tripod (on the floor probably put you) and that's it? But please be serious. So this discussion is useless as your comment,in my opinion. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LivioAndronico, you've been on good behavior (from what I've seen) since your return. Don't backslide and remember what happened before. Is this photo geocoded? Is there an Italian-language description? I see you didn't address those things. And the question of who painted the frescoes is one I've given up asking you but previously wanted to know. I'm tending to find Code's sober expression of opinion more persuasive than your hot dismissal of him. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: say:"Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion." it is definitely a nice way of saying something, but treated as a child, especially after more than 100 FP. If for you it is a way of making nice, then I apologize, but I do not consider this, you can ask the saturation, artist, etc., but they are all things that one can "fix". --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Livioandronico2013: I'm sorry if I was wrong regarding the efforts you have to make to create such photos. I'm honestly curious: What else do you do to make such photos of ceilings? I really want to know as I'm always willing to improve my own skills. Concerning WB and saturation I still believe that they are far from being perfect. I know this church very well and that's not what it looks like. But well, maybe you're trying an artistic approach, then it might just be a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: What a question is that? .... Then what do you do more than point a camera on any object? The same is that these kind of photos and that is: perspective, cuts, contrast, saturation, etc. Then if you believe that the saturation etc are not to your taste is ok, but it is not respectful to others, or are more ignorant of you? Also write "Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion." is a compliment in germany i think --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another of these discussions which are leading to nowhere. So sad! --Code (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you had not insulted or making fun of other people it do not exist. And you would not be sad. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hovewer Done Ikan Kekek --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and remark: as I noticed that there are people of several cultures on these discussions and sometimes is not possible to recognize the border between formal and sarcastic language, can we please stay on referential language only and avoid (no exception) anything that might sound either as sarcasm, mockery, criticism of the person, demeaning of one's skills, accusations of lack of objectivity and whatever else, please? Thanks. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Fornarina by Raffaello.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have updated some info. But a little bit confusion about the date of creation, is it between 1518 and 1520 or 1518 and 1519. English wikipedia provides both! ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moheen,but Raffaello died in 1520 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Lighthouse beside the Montazah garden in Alexandria.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 22:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by علاء - uploaded by علاء - nominated by علاء -- --Alaa :)..! 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Alaa :)..! 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As you can see, this file failed Consensual Review at QIC on Feb. 15. It has not been edited since. I'm not sure why you thought it would be a good FP candidate, but everyone can simply read the comments at the link. I have no reason to repeat or modify them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I withdraw the nomination. Thanks--Alaa :)..! 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raven Rattle, late 19th Century Tlingit culture; Fort Wrangell, Alaska.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 22:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Musical_instruments, Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Bowers Museum - uploaded by Susan M Anderson - nominated by Bluerasberry -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing anything here that takes it above a QI. The background/surface is uninspiring and there's too much of that vs the object. I'd expect a studio shot of such an object to be sharp and detailed, and this isn't quite. The background is puzzlingly noisy but the EXIF suggests the original may be under exposed and unsharp, and the processing to correct that has introduced lots of noise. What's the purpose of FP over QI if the subject or photography is merely adequate. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: That is all valid criticism. Before you brought it up none of it crossed my mind. In response to your "What's the purpose" question: As an infrequent but repeat user of the Commons grading systems I often do not know which process to use. I came here to get some validation back to the museum that the Wikimedia community had some critique of their submission and also to get some approval of the image in case I distributed it around multiple articles. Overall, I am looking for some image grading to justify more-than-typical reuse of images, and am ambivalent about what form that should take. If an image is suggested to be integrated across languages, and in Wikidata, and elsewhere, then it seems right to me to submit it for grading somewhere. If anyone ever wanted to have talks about reforming the grading process then I might talk about that, because I would not have minded grading process that could have had any of a number of outcomes like "FP", "QI", "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects", etc. Right now it is still fairly novel for museums to make media donations, but as this trend steps up, I would like for there to be clearer guidance about what Wikipedians can do to mediate between museums and the Commons community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unitary grading system. VIC, QIC and FPC have different criteria. Also, QIs have to be photographed by Commons members, whereas VIs and FPs don't have to. Check the Commons category, but this would seem to be a good VI candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled what you were expecting from FP. It's a perfectly reasonable picture, albeit with quite a lot of room left round the subject, and could be used in articles related to the subject. That's not really what we are judging here. While we aim (albeit imperfectly) to determine professional standards of technical quality in an image, we're also looking for something extra that takes it to be among our finest images. We need to be wowed, either by an amazing subject captured well or a mundane subject captured extraordinarily, or by amazing light, or a great moment, etc etc. One could set up a table with an infinite sheet of grey card, some soft boxes and a DSLR and snap away taking perfectly competent photos all day. They could be very useful documents of the collection of the museum and perfectly usable images, but what is special about them? Also, this photo is five years old, so you are not really getting feedback about what sort of photos they should take -- the photographer who took this has probably moved on long ago. Personally, I wish QI was merely a judge of a "professional quality; useful image" and didn't care about the image origins or some of the pixel-peeping that goes on. We lack that kind of grade and it seems to me the most useful one for our re-users because they could eliminate the poor quality images that one would need to be desperate to use. Btw, "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects" is unlikely to be a grading criteria. Commons is about more than WMF projects or the concerns of a MediaWiki user interface. I see the Bowers museum has a mission to "enrich lives through the world's finest arts and cultures" and "celebrate world cultures through their arts". If they believe that extends beyond the visitors to their museum, then sharing their collection with the world using freely licensed photos is one way. While Commons doesn't provide a great UI for viewing a collection, it does make it easy to share those images and permit their reuse elsewhere. Surely they should be mainly concerned with taking and offering the best photos they can, rather than worry about the opinions of half a dozen amateurs or their use on Wikimedia projects? Any professional photographer of artefacts will likely give better advice than anyone here can. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. A tighter crop might address some of those issues, but at the cost of making the picture too small to be nominated. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin – Lucas ^T 19:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:30+68 German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 ILA Berlin 2016 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 10:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Ezarateesteban 11:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Getting a perfect exposure like this out of an aircraft-against-blue-skye image is not an easy task, as the sun seems to have a tendency to be anywhere but in the right place for that. What's even more, you make it look like an air-to-air shoot. That's what you'd expect to see on the cover page of an aviation magazine or the front page of airliners.net etc. Congrats! --El Grafo (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding --The Photographer 17:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent! —- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nose is a touch out of focus, but you can't always have everything. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp for this kind of photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 22:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Atura Hotel, Albury NSW.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 08:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best light conditions, and not a very interesting motif --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this might have worked under different light, and maybe from a different angle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Floribeth Mora Canonisation JXXIII J-PII (2).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 11:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Aleteia Image Department - uploaded by Storkk - nominated by Vanoot59 -- Vanoot59 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vanoot59 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personality rights needed IMHO Ezarateesteban 12:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The portrait is nice, but the background is distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be great if one can manage to create a less distracting background. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. lNeverCry 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not bothered by the background ... if anything the space to the side makes us curious about what she's looking at. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not outstanding --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Horseback wrestlers in Kyrgyzstan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 15:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Theklan (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's quite interesting, but I don't like the tight crop on the right side. Do you have a version of this picture with a looser crop? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a full sequence, but this is the original crop of this image. I could upload others and propose it as a set, maybe. -Theklan (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on what else would be in the series, but I don't think I would vote to feature this picture, due to the tight crop and the other horse overlapping this one's nose. Others may differ, but I find that quite distracting. But then again, this is a very interesting subject with a beautiful background of snow-capped peaks, so I don't want to oppose, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have this others in Flickr: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. There are some other sports, but I want to make different nominations for best of each kind. If you think one of them is better, I could upload it, cancel this nomination, and start over again. -Theklan (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of them seem like FPs to me, but others may have a different opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan; frankly I think this vertical orientation isn't the best framing and a lot of the mountains could be cropped out. (Although I must say this is an interesting take on riding bareback !) Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Megazostrodon sp. Natural History Museum - London.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 14:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by User:Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Theklan (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in focus. Charles (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. As this model is not running away, you would be expected to approach pinpoint sharpness to get the photo featured. However, it might be a good Valued Image nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even without looking at it at full-res, the blurry areas up front are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Private Diwan (Court building) of Shah Safi I of Persia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 08:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info uploaded and nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 08:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 08:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Question what exactly are we looking at? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Falbisoner: It's a painting which has been drawn by an Iranian artist in Safavid period.This is for Shah Safis privet court which he considerd public matters.At the moment this monument doesn't exist and destroyed many years ago.-- Sahand Ace 14:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please write that info on the file's page, in English so it will be accesseble in the right place. --cart-Talk 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Sahand Ace, when was the file photographed? I'm guessing it must have been an analog photo, correct? Because my reaction to it is that it should be sharper, but I understand this is probably a scarce, maybe even unique photograph of a work of art that no longer exists. However, I don't think we have enough information yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: I have written the information in english.
@Ikan Kekek: The most productive sites are filter in Iran,this is the cause that i could not apload appropriate photos.I have sent the address of the site which contains the information of this painting

Comment - OK. They don't indicate this artwork no longer exists, nor do they state when it was photographed. Are you sure the Rijksmuseum no longer owns this work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not as sharp as we've come to expect of other painting digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel and my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunlight and shadows on white cotton curtain.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 21:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info So, either you are going to think that she has completely lost it or you are going to kick yourselves for not thinking of taking something as simple as this photo. ;) Either way, this playful interaction of shapes, soft sunlight and shadows makes me happy. All by me, -- cart-Talk 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After about a month of visiting FP candidates my pattern recognition system adapts to spotting 'cart'-pictures. This one reminds me of sitting as a kid in the kitchen, spoiling my time and watching the sun in the curtains ... --PtrQs (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't have a strong enough effect on me to support it as FP, I'm afraid. Part of that is the low contrast and not enough going on for me personally. – Lucas ^T 11:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although shot in the afternoon, the bright color of the light and the curtain makes me think of morning, and my cue to finally get out of bed. The wow for me is in the texture. Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I respect the photo and the fact that you stuck your neck out to nominate it, but it's just not special enough for me to think it warrants being run on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alegría personificada. Carnaval de Ruzafa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 12:53:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Dorieo - uploaded by Dorieo - nominated by User:Dorieo -- Dorieo (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dorieo (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not sharp. Needs a personality rights warning tag, too. Nice motif anyways. --Code (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has a personality warning now. It's clearly unsharp at full size, but full size is bigger than life size, and this photo fulfills the first of the 12 Elements of a Merit Image in spades, in my opinion: "Impact is the sense one gets upon viewing an image for the first time. Compelling images evoke laughter, sadness, anger, pride, wonder or another intense emotion." And for me, the impact is lasting. My feeling is, if this photo could be sharpened just a bit so that the woman is sharper at full screen, we should support a promotion. I could see this as an iconic image. Dorieo, could you please sharpen a bit? Tomascastelazo, given our previous discussions, I'd be particularly interested in your take on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I really love the pose and the lighting and the joy that just pours from this photo. But ... none of her face is in focus, not even her eyes, and that's the least we can ask technically from an image of a person. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent shoot composition, however, the quality factor in this case is improvable --The Photographer 16:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikan Kekek I think it is a beautiful capture, however, the image is a little soft. Even if the instant is special, the motif is not, that is, a photograph of a woman (as beautiful as she may be), therefore the technical issue here is important. If it had been the last image of a famous person it would be a different story. Thank you for your consideration. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yours. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:30+68 German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 ILA Berlin 2016 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 10:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Ezarateesteban 11:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Getting a perfect exposure like this out of an aircraft-against-blue-skye image is not an easy task, as the sun seems to have a tendency to be anywhere but in the right place for that. What's even more, you make it look like an air-to-air shoot. That's what you'd expect to see on the cover page of an aviation magazine or the front page of airliners.net etc. Congrats! --El Grafo (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding --The Photographer 17:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent! —- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nose is a touch out of focus, but you can't always have everything. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp for this kind of photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 22:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GNV ATLAS (ship, 1990), Sète cf03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 18:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only a good QI to me, I'm afraid --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Martin unfortunately. A very good QI indeed though -- Thennicke (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin – Lucas ^T 11:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; doesn't have the oomph this one does. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Daniel is right, and the comparison clinched it for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 15:07:39 (UTC)

TDK Head Cleaner - Black background
Polarising filter cancels out direct light from polarised light source
TDK Head Cleaner - White background
Polarising filter aligned with direct light from polarised light source

Info Going further back in time than Compact Disc, here is a TDK Head Cleaner. The clear plastic is birefringent and demonstrates internal stress as coloured patterns (photoelasticity) when photographed using cross polarisation. In first photo, the polarising filter on the lens is at right-angles to the polarised light from the LCD monitor behind the cassette. This cancels out all the direct light, producing a black background. In second photo, the monitor was rotated 90°, aligning the polarised light with the filter. This lets through all the direct light, producing a white background. The colours are stronger in the first photo but also switched about (e.g., green and magenta). You can see a Juxtapose of the two images here. For reference, the cassette under normal light is shown in this photo. The pair of images demonstrate how rotation by 90° affects the interaction of polarised light with a polarised filter. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a trip! Reality is overrated. --cart-Talk 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support out of pure interest, mostly, and also respect for the great focus on the subjects (the one on the left being cooler to me than the other). I'm still not quite sure I understand what you did, though. Did you produce some kind of spectroscopy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More details on the setup/physics

Ikan, this is just the effect polarised light has on some clear plastic objects. You can see this effect yourself if you hold some clear plastic object in front of a white area on your computer monitor. I'm looking at my ruler right now and it sparkles. --cart-Talk 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So it's the results of a clear object functioning as a prism. But what does "polarized" light mean? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is light that has gone through a sort of filter. It is covered pretty well in en:Polarization (waves) or en:Polarizing filter (photography). --cart-Talk 15:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No high-tech equipment required. The physics is a bit beyond me, though I've linked to the relevant articles on WP. I've got an LCD monitor in the background, showing a white page and with the brightness turned up. The room is dark, so there is no other source of light, just what shines through the clear plastic. The LCD monitor has a linear polarisation filter in it, as part of how the display works. On my camera I also have a polarising filter. Modern polarisers for SLR cameras have a linear polarising filter on the outside layer of the glass and a quarter-wave plate on the inside that converts it to circular polarised light. This extra step is necessary as the optics of exposure meters and phase-detect autofocus systems do not work well if the light is linear polarised. For the purpose here, that extra layer isn't relevant, as it is the interaction of two linear polarising filters that matters. If they are aligned, then it lets through light and you see the white LCD. If one is rotated 90° then it lets through none of the light and you see black. The clear plastic interferes with polarised light, changing its polarity in a way that is wavelength (colour) dependent. Apparently the stress in the plastic affects this so photoelasticity is used in industry to examine the stress on a model (even if one does not intend to make the final product in clear hard plastic). This effect can be seen with one's own eyes -- there's no magic going on with the camera or in Photoshop. I haven't enhanced the saturation at all. As an aside, the quarter-wave plate on a circular polarising filter means that if you position it back-to-front, then it has no effect. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Cart is right that one can see some effect with clear hard plastic held in front of one's LCD monitor, it is quite faint. One has to hold the object at just the right angle (which presumably is related to how light becomes polarised when striking a reflective surface at an angle). If I hold the cassette tape squarely in front of the monitor, I see no special colours at all. But if I twist it at an angle then colours start to appear like a weaker version of the white photo above. You need another linear polariser to get cross polarisation that demonstrates the full effect like with the black photo. If I hold the cassette tape up to the white overcast sky, then there are no colours, no matter what angle I turn it. -- Colin (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that full explanation, I just gave the CliffsNotes. ;) --cart-Talk 16:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, thanks for the practical explanation. I don't have a background in physics, so that Wikipedia article is Greek to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan I did physics for one year at university, and I found the WP articles tough going. I'm afraid much of the WP maths/physics articles are written for other mathematicians and physicists to read, and they resist all attempts to make them understandable by lay readers. One just has to glean what little one can. Btw, this effect only works with some clear hard plastics, but not others such as polythene. I think it is due to the way the carbon chains align and the injection-molding process used to manufature the product. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. Colin has become a masterfully skilled expert on turning banal objects into abstract pieces of art. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 18:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will never forget the awesome plasticky smell of fresh cassettes. Jm3 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! -- Thennicke (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Groovy! Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:58:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another camera I'd love to have... lNeverCry 06:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, I see nothing special in this that would make it FP-worthy, as this image could be produced by many with even lighting and a DSLR, and the composition is boring. I have many of these images for ebay-auctions. It is a good QI and VI but not FP in my opinion. FP needs wow, something that places it among our finest. Simple but good studio shots alone don't do it I'm afraid. Would it have exceptional technical quality that shows much more detail, I'd vote differently. – Lucas ^T 11:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. There's nothing particularly wrong with this, but it's just a pretty straight-forward picture of a common subject. It deserves its QI and VI badge, and could possibly become FP at several more Wikipedias, but for FP at Commons it lacks "WOW". --El Grafo (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see it as any less FP-worthy than this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I'd probably stay neutral on that one. At least the Sony is perfectly clean and there's something about the lighting that makes it look much more … uhm … "professional" to my eyes (though I don't really know what exactly that something is). --El Grafo (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Daniel Case, El Grafo, I think the pure white background makes the difference, the photo here has a grey background, making it look more dull/dirty. Having a white background—shadows dissolving into it—is a step up in photographic quality in my book (as long as the object stays well defined) and that is what removes you "seeing" how the sausage is made (the paper background being used). There is a line in perception somewhere. Consider this as a clearer example: File:Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS USM.jpg – Lucas ^T 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good photo but not a FP for me. Reproducible by anyone at any time--Ermell (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well managed DoF, background, and shadows. I wouldn't say it's manageable "by anyone at any time". --A.Savin 21:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Caravan in the desert.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 13:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Caravan in the desert, Morocco. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contrast and saturation may be a bit over the top here but the visual impression is just awesome! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until we fix whatever's going on along the highest ridgeline (CA, oversharpening ... not sure). Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are at least two round dust spots in the sky. --Cayambe (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Colors look saturated, harsh contrast (It could be fixed rebuilding from the amazing D800 RAW Dynamic Range) --The Photographer 16:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 20:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 22:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow!! A scenery just like from a picture book or a wall calendar. Looking at it, this Russian children's verse by Chukovsky "Не ходите дети в Африку гулять" ("Kids, do not go walk in Africa") immediately comes to my mind ;-) Seriously, a great photo. --A.Savin 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (moderately) per others, but how are the people in such shadow? What's the source of the shadow? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The camels are blocking the sunlight, which is coming from the right of the frame. However, the blacks are burned too, which gives it unrealistic contrast -- Thennicke (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better if some was trimmed off the bottom. Charles (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow² $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support The composition is excellent and the scene is fantastic so that I can forgive the oversaturated colours.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lorenzo Lotto - Madonna and Child with Two Donors - 77.PA.110 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 20:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info digital image courtesy of the Getty's Open Content Program. - uploaded by BotMultichill - nominated by Multichill -- Multichill (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Multichill (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Lori Berd, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 63-65 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 13:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Ruined armenian church inside Lori Berd (Lori Fortress), a 11th-century fortress located in the Lori Province, Armenia. The fortress was built by David Anhoghin to become the capital of Kingdom of Tashir-Dzoraget in 1065. Poc o² 13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 14:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hm, sorry. In this case I tend to the "QI but not FP" section. The light is not that excellent, the front part is in shadow and the stones around the ruin look a little bit messy. --Code (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it quite much, with its large dynamic range, good light and nice clouds. Now, when going into pixel-peeping mode, the boundary between the hill and the sky looks edited at some places, this could be improved. – Lucas ^T 15:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I disagree with Code in this instance. The contrast between the light and shadow is what makes the photo to me, to a large extent, and ruins sort of should be messy, which is why they're ruins. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This place is 1000 years old, if it were tidy and the construction flawless it would loss its charm. This church is a real relic Poc o² 22:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:McClure Tunnel west.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 20:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Steve Lyon - uploaded by Rschen7754 - nominated by Rschen7754 -- Rs chen 7754 20:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was also recently promoted as a featured picture on the English Wikipedia. -- Rs chen 7754 20:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my support at enwiki FPC. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than looking at LA during the day... lNeverCry 06:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Carillon, Canberra ACT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 12:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info National Carillon, Canberra, reflecting in the waters of Lake Burley Griffin
Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a few too bright ...but ok. Nice composition. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Midday light, too bright, overall nothing special. Yann (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Yann. Beautiful composition but the lighting can be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the "too bright" comments; nothing is overexposed, and this is indeed as the scene looked. I assume you have checked your monitors? -- Thennicke (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself, but to me "too bright" here refers to the quality of the light, not the quantity. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Thanks, that makes sense. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems with the light. It is a great view of an iconic building, with great detail and quality. It's a very wholesome view that puts into context the building's location on a shorefront, and gives a good idea of the building's size. Incredible shot. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Svartifoss July 2014.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 14:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Iceland
Info Svartifoss (Black Falls) is a waterfall in Skaftafell in Vatnajökull National Park, Iceland. It is surrounded by dark lava columns which gave rise to its name. This is a renomination. I've tried to address the issues mentioned back then. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't know if it's just me, but Firefox keeps crashing (or at least the tab does) when I try to open the file (as opposed to the file page, which is fine). Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I upgraded to FF 52.0.1 and that did it. However, the image is far too overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't even process it that much... but I have to admit that f/22 - I didn't have much choice btw - doesn't really help qualitywise. ;-) I guess I'd withdraw the nom now but I'm interested if there are still browser related problems somewhere ... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info not here, hmm... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have so far tried this with Chrome and Edge. Instead of crashing, those browsers display a long series of symbols, among which the author's metadata is interspersed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question is anyone else experiencing the same problems? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox 52.0 here, no crashing problem for me -- Thennicke (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trouts in the pond.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created by BuhaM - uploaded by BuhaM - nominated by BuhaM -- BuhaM (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- BuhaM (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see much in focus here. Charles (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the distorted look (not that we have much choice - this is what you would see in real life). The "wow" factor comes from the startling number of trout in such a small area, as well as the splashes of golden color. Strong FP for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am wowed by the image itself, but not enough to disregard that it should have been sharper for an FP. Sorry. --cart-Talk 11:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice reminder that trout season (for me) starts in a couple of weeks and I better get my license for this year, but other than that no wow for me. A little hard to tell what it is at first, and the pattern isn't striking. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wood pigeons (Columba palumbus).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 20:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Even very common birds can pose for you... created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this a couple? Can you tell which one is which sex? I observe rock pigeons a lot, and I often have trouble telling the sexes apart unless the male is engaging in mating behavior or puffing himself up while chasing away another male. But sometimes, if I see a couple hanging out on a ledge, I can tell from the relative sizes, the shape of the ceres and the amount of iridescent feathers on the head, neck and upper torso. I'm guessing the pigeon on our left is the female, but I'm not sure and we don't have wood pigeons in my neck of the woods. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a guess to tell them apart, though the males have slightly larger heads, but from their behaviour on the branch they are for sure a couple. Charles (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been trying to figure out why I'm not yet feeling impelled to vote to feature this picture. I think it's because there's so much bokeh above the pigeons in the picture frame. I think that if you cropped out a bit more than half of it, I'd like the photo better and vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do that if others agree. Charles (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The bright bokeh behind the left pigeon is offputting, especially since the birds are light-colored. lNeverCry 06:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Competently done and a QI for sure, but just not enough wow for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic weekend evening atmoshere in home. --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georgia Jvari monastery IMG 9345 2070.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 22:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Alexxx1979 - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Great composition and colors, but quality is slightly low (especially the right side) for a 6 MP image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The fuzziness KoH refers to is clearly visible at full screen on my laptop. Apologies if I'm unduly devaluing this nomination, but it's my impression that we've had a lot of submissions that were of comparable if not greater beauty but also sharper in the foreground and middleground. I don't feel like this is an FP, but we'll see if it will be one, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality and detail too low. I don't see anything exceptional here beyond a holiday photo. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support critics are right as far as technical issues are concerned. But to me this nom is more than just a holiday photo, its composition is excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the light and composition – Lucas ^T 15:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. Nice motif, but lack of details. Looks also a bit tilted ccw --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Martin (...and 7) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Contortionist Eliza, "Show Contortion is a Cabaret" 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 18:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Steffen Günthel, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of CA all around. Fixable. Otherwise good. --Code (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Code, "a lot of CA" seems to be quite exaggerated. I see a small purple line on the top of the hat... S.Günthel, could you look at that? Regards, Yann (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a striking photo. I think it would be OK to feature as is, though I expect it to be corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not my cup of tea, sorry... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely this pic has some good "arguments" --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Contortionist", really?? She's just sitting there stiking a pose, looking like something out of a gentleman's magazine. There is no 'wow' in that for me. If it was one of the other photos from the series where she acually do something, I would consider it for FP. Those photos also show just as much of her "arguments" to satisfy the male audience here. ;) --cart-Talk 11:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I hesitated to nominate another one of the series. Ultimately, I find her expression here is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done CA removed. However carter was a joke. Composition,light and quality are good...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot! @Code and Daniel Case: Ok for you? Yann (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's still some CA at her right arm and on the chair-whatever-thing she's sitting on. --Code (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: Could you please leave a note, as I don't see what needs to be edited. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Done --Code (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not allowed to not be 'wowed' by the same things you are? --cart-Talk 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think Livio was saying that he was joking, not that you were a joke. In Italian, "Carter, era un scherzo"; no "it" is necessary for meaning in Italian, but I think he left out a crucial comma by mistake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this is how international conflicts are started. ;) Italian has never been my strong side... --cart-Talk 18:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more than anything else is a "european" conflict carter. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aridone @Code: @Yann: @Daniel Case: I think is fine now --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Famagusta 01-2017 img14 Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 19:47:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The foreground is pretty cluttered but the lights + atmosphere more than makes up for it. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, but the foreground trees are a problem. The best of the best? No sorry. Yann (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry, centering an off-center building. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trees are not (evils) not so disturbing visually, though the blue in background is a bit dark, quality is very good and the light excelent. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Superfície - Bordo Trifolio Não Orientável.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 08:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 08:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 08:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer trying to annoying me

Comment I'm not expert in this area, however, I can read in the description that the first one is a Mathematical surface which the boundaries are the trefoil knot and the seccond one is Mathematical non-orientable surface. Maybe there are hundreds of mathematical representations of a trefoil knot and basically this kind of representation not change too much in form and color. BTW, could be nice see more description about this representation like how was it done (computer generated, for example). --The Photographer 11:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo, and no, there is this two. And you don't need to be a expert to compare and see how great the difference is... and why you complaining about that? We may have hundreds of sea shells, churches, mountains ... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joalpe:

English: The image description comment that the "object is part of the Matemateca", please, could you tell us who is the author (not the image but the object). Thanks

Português: O comentário da descrição da imagem fala que o "objeto é parte da Matemateca", por favor, você poderia nos dizer quem é o autor (não a imagem, mas sim do objeto). Muito obrigado

--The Photographer 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This a mathematical object, so the form is not suitable for copyright, and the author attribution is not necessary.

I know that you are in this hunt for my head, just because I don't pet you, however you should calm down, you starting to shame yourself lying, inventing rules, and ignoring well know copyright bases...

So take a break and be content that you stop this candidature using the previous flaws pointed in the last round by Colin, even using a fallacious suggesting that the object was the same, the photo was computer made, as Colin pointed that was bad, live this moment of happiness and go find better things to do. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 07:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ... and church interiors. Well captured and it belongs to be together with the previous nomination – feel free to make a group nomination next time for similar photos where there aren't many of the same kind. – Lucas ^T 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing a huge volume of pieces, and this ones they stood out, that's why I didn't put together, I just edited it, and the other 2 weeks ago. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like it, as I did the last one, but one is enough for me. Charles (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp ??

This is not the same object, you just vote in favour of one church? One painting? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 23:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my opinion. So far, I did not oppose. So how many similar images, with the same artistic concept, but with slight differences and different colours, do you think should be promoted? 50? 100? 1000? 09:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Around 80.... The difference is not subtle, similar names don't make them equal... Panthera tigris, Panthera leo... And from 20 with the same quality I selected only 2... And how many Mathematical objects do we have in this quality? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ Support ~~on fixing the CA on the top blade~~ Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case,

Fixed. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amazing work. --Joalpe (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sturm (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Грчка црква, Прилеп. (алт.).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 20:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by MadMona - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why do you think this hazy blue picture should be featured? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the motif of the church with the vanishing houses in the background.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. That could work for me if the church had been sharper and there wasn't such a pronounced blue shift; what caused that? Anyway, let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think if we could see more layers of buildings withing the fog... Like sunsets, the mist can be attractive but you still need a compelling composition and luck. The technical quality and size are low, with lots of purple CA. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The only thing I don't like about this photo is the omnipresent purple fringe, but that can be dealt with easily. Otherwise I like it a lot. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:View across Botany Bay from Inscription Point.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia
Info created by Philip Terry Graham - uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of my finer works. Ran unopposed as a Quality and Valued image candidate. Thought I'd try my luck at the third and final hurdle. :) -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant artefacts at the left, causing the surface of the rocks to appear smudged. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for an iPhone picture to reach the level of technical quality required for an FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from technical considerations, I'm not wowed by anything here. The area isn't the most attractive place I've seen lately. lNeverCry 06:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination, mostly due to King's reasoning. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landsort August 2016 32.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 05:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:ArildV - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a very different view of Landsort than we've featured before: a peaceful view at nightfall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a tighter bottom crop could further improve the image --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that much to see here, really, to me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - So this photo is not busy enough for you? :-) There doesn't seem to be much interest. But the voting period lasts 8 more days, so I will wait a bit longer before considering a withdrawal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't really understand the lack of interest, pro or con, in this image. Do you all just find it too subtle to interest you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it's just such a routine seascape that wearily checks all the boxes: ultrawide lens, blue hour, rocky foreground, smooth water, horizon right in the middle. It's been done so many times before. The soft light and wispy clouds are nice, so I don't feel strongly enough to oppose, but I'd really want to see something a little more unique. There's so much potential in this scene, with the low moon and interesting rock formations, that in context the nominated image seems to lack the all-important wow factor. FWIW, I'd gladly support File:Landsort August 2016 14.jpg, another photo in the series that is much more compelling IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing this. I withdraw my nomination -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tyrrhenische Mauereidechse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 18:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by CChris - uploaded by CChris - nominated by CChris -- Christoph (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christoph (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is not particularly sharp. Charles (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. A good picture, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm actually OK with the head the way it is, but I think we could do without most of that space on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the head is not necessarily as sharp as it possibly could be, but it's close to it, and for me, the composition is nice enough to override that. I think the space on the left is fine, personally -- Thennicke (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kafka1906.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 22:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
Info created by Atelier Jacobi: Sigismund Jacobi - uploaded by Maartenvdbent~commonswiki - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What a haunting facial expression! But too small for FP or QI. Try VIC. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is too small, as noted above Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Check now --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support to remove FPX. Not too bad for the time, and nice pose. Yann (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any chance of getting rid of that ugly mark left by a paper clip (up right)? --cart-Talk 12:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose LivioAndronico, where on earth did you get this POS from? The quality is dreadful. It looks like it has been upscaled and sharpened. This file is a classic example of where Commons does a poor job with artworks. There are at least two different copies of this photograph, of varying quality and size, and they all have different sources. Yet nobody updates the "source" in the description. Can we have some honesty about where we pinch our photos? -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colin keep calm...is only a pic --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin said it: Not to put too fine a point on it, this expanded version sucks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Ikan Kekek,very helpful --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really need specifics? It was horribly out of focus, with weird artifacts. But surely, you saw that yourself. But it looks like it's now 494 × 794 pixels and should be FPXed again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me where I asked you specific? Why do you invent things? Above is a photo of 1906, you know you do better? I do not believe. Be polite I just tried to help out in any case not answer questions that nobody made to you ... specific ... who gave it to you asked ... boh .... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about your enlarged version, not the original photo, which is great but too small for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:The Photographer has reverted Livio's version. At least the current version isn't trying to pretend it has more pixels than it had. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overprocessed --The Photographer 16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and remark: as I noticed that there are people of several cultures on these discussions and sometimes is not possible to recognize the border between formal and sarcastic language, can we please stay on referential language only and avoid (no exception) anything that might sound either as sarcasm, mockery, criticism of the person, demeaning of one's skills, accusations of lack of objectivity and whatever else, please? Thanks. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth is "referrential language"? -- Colin (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - referential. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2017 -- 9273.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 17:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many elements working at too many different purposes to wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing what's exceptional about this scene. Seems to be just a fairly random composition of grass and tree stumps. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Miha (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Park (Weseler Straße) -- 2017 -- 9197.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 17:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very pretty and a strong QI, but not up to FP standards for me unfortunately. The lighting is somewhat harsh, making it difficult to see any detail in the blossoms, and the background tree trunks distract from the main subject and constrict the composition. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special enough for me to vote it for FP.-- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. The daffodils look orangy; I've shot them in what I think to be truer color myself. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is such a commonly photographed subject that I think it needs to be quite special in some way to justify FP (e.g. File:Narzisse.jpg). -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Laach Kirche Flügelaltar Kreuzigung 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 07:25:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
Info The Crucifixion at the winged altar of the parish- and pilgrimage church Maria Laach am Jauerling, Lower Austria. View for Sundays with closed inner wings. Anonymous master, 1480. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Truly sorry, but the candles at the bottom really ruin it for me. --cart-Talk 10:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination and will try to get it without the candles (and with my new lens) --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abtei Seckau Engelskapelle Altarwand 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 07:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Angel's Chapel with frescos Seckau Apocalypse by Herbert Boeckl (1952 – 1960) at Seckau Abbey, Styria, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting and different --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light creating a distracting shadow in the bottom half of the picture. Also, we need to be clear that this is a free image under Austrian FoP (it currently has no banner about that). Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пејзаж во Злетовско-пробиштипско 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 09:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing anything exceptional here to make me go wow. -- Colin (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. The foreground is promising, but the background just gets (literally) too flat. A landscape like this needs some dynamism in the back. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Маркови кули Прилеп.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 09:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Stotosenik - uploaded by Stotosenik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting isn't doing anything for me, lacking overall contrast. Just lack some spark that makes "View of a town in a valley" exceptional. -- Colin (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 34.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2017 at 03:24:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by User:Agnes Monkelbaan - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the light as well as the scenery in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm... The light and view are fantastic but there are cut things both top and bottom (stone & bush bottom, hills top) that distracts from it. IMO it would be more harmonious if it was cropped a bit tighter. Either crop out just the stone & bush or crop so that the clefts between the hills are cut out, or something like that. --cart-Talk 08:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the stones. I wouldn't object to a crop of the bottom if Agnes wants to do it. I'd hesitate to support a crop from the top, as I want to see some of the shape of the hills. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was only a suggestion, not an oppose. Of course you do as you like. :) --cart-Talk 18:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But it's really up to Agnes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cut/composition - IMO more sky should be seen --Miha (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has their own opinion, but I think part of the point of this picture is that you see a lot of bright sunlight without the sun in the picture to mess up the dynamic range. If the picture extended higher, I get the sense the sun would be in the picture very quickly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The composition doesn't reach the level of other landscape FPs. Yes, we don't want bright sunlight messing up the DR, but that could have been done without cropping trees. And I'm more concerned about the bottom crop, which appears chaotic, in my opinion. It's a great capture of course (I like the light), but I don't think it's the best of the best. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature excluded your name - Charles, I assume? Agnes, if you feel like doing some kind of crop that might satisfy the objections in this thread, please go ahead. If you prefer, you or I could just withdraw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ikan, that was me. Amended -- Thennicke (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Unfortunately there is not enough room to crop. Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination of my photo.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:CabezaBustoManuelBelgrano-TandilArg-mar2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 21:33:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Head of the bust of Manuel Belgrano, Tandil, Argentina

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 21:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get the framing of this. Charles (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Cayambe (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination both version, I go to take another picure of this subject, thanks!! Ezarateesteban 22:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

Another framing --Ezarateesteban 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Support - This is a good framing. Not pinpoint sharp at full size, but I think it's fine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO, Tilt background doesn't look good. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The harsh contrast in the background is distracting. Also because of the uneven light and burnt (small) areas on the bust. --Cayambe (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ezarateesteban 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:O'Briens Castle Inisheer 5130 (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 19:38:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The 14th century O'Brien's Castle, on Inisheer, Aran Islands. All by Jjm596 -- Jjm596 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jjm596 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A beautiful scene, but very unsharp to the point where crucial detail is missing. Add to that significant color fringing in some areas, CW tilt, and a somewhat lacking composition (IMO), and the quality is not up to FP standards. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to Julian's points, the WB seems off to me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Jjm596 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osnabrück - Zoo - Suricata Suricatta 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 16:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Category:Suricata suricatta in zoos -- this is not exceptional. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd have to agree with Colin - good but not exceptional. A big drawback, compared to the current FPs of meerkats in zoos, is the background, which I find distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Basotxerri (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]