Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2019

File:2017.06.18.-20-Viernheim--Barbarossa-Fliege-Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 15:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Robber fly - Eutolmus rufibarbis, female

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Asilidae (Robber Flies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice - is that a spider she's captured? Charles (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a moth. To see better in the other two versions. --Hockei (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Asilidae (Robber Flies)

File:Roesel's bush-cricket (Metrioptera roeselii diluta) male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 13:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info This "macropterous form" subspecies is colonising the UK; this specimen being the furthest north it had been recorded in Oxfordshire. The longer wings allow it to fly. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good detail and sharpness, nice bokeh. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Baso. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 14:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Castle of Selles-sur-Cher 24.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2019 at 08:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather similar to this nomination and suffering from similar weaknesses. The right crop is too tight, tourists on the bridge, the sky is not very appealing and while the lighting is somewhat better IMO, there is not enough wow for me. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per B2Belgium. --Peulle (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schneider's Smooth-fronted Caiman, Berlin Zoo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2019 at 07:56:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles Alligatoridae (Alligators and Caimans)
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 07:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 07:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long way away on quality. Charles (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles.--Peulle (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per C; however, the composition is nevertheless excellent. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the input. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Japanese Macaque, Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2019 at 07:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 07:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 07:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice, but gray on gray isn't working that well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually like the grey on grey, as that makes the face really pop out. Unfortunately, the general picture quality/processing is way below our standards for zoo shots. The red areas almost look like the color has been painted in with a large brush. --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo; face is really noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the input. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

file:2017.06.18.-11-Viernheim--Feuerlibelle-rotes Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 11:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info Females of the scarlet dragonfly are usually not red. This is rather rare. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I've never photographed one. Charles (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! --Yann (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support High level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive indeed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ben Arthur, Arrochar Alps, Scotland 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 18:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
Info All by me. It's Ben Arthur, also called The Cobbler, an epic mountain in the Southern Highlands, Scotland. The picture was taken about 20 minutes after sunrise and the light was mesmerizing that morning. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light, photogenic mountain. I do think your focus is a bit close meaning the distance isn't as sharp as foreground. Btw, did you thread the eye of the needle? I did that as a young teenager. Not a difficult scramble to the top but very very exposed. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sure it was a great experience to be up there, but the shapes aren't doing enough for me for me to consider this a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but the image is not talking to me. I don't believe this one is among our finest, sorry Poc o² 06:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love mountain landscapes. and for me this is a nice picture. But the left side from the middle to the top could have been sharper. The WB. is on the warm side for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piza Scotoni Piza Fanes de Medo Val Badia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 20:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and quality, though would prefer if brightened 1/4 stop or so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a great picture but aren't there technical problems? The right edge of the central peak seems to be floating in thin air. The tree trunk on the left abruptly narrows at the bottom. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the note. Fixed the stitching error. The tree is a swiss pine which has a very tortouos growth do to the harsh weather conditions there as you can see also from the broken top due to very recent storms.

Oppose for now per B2Belgium, I´m wondering about the preferences and leniency if the size is big and dolomites are shown. --Milseburg (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't get your point --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You fixed the stitching error after my vote. I wondered about the votes that seemed to overlook it. --Milseburg (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Majestic ... how could you keep your eyes on the trail skiing through this scene? Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epic scene. --Podzemnik (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scarlet darter (Crocothemis erythraea) female Bulgaria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 14:42:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info The red female is indeed quite rare. This nomination is for a typical mature female. by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, I really like the pleasant background. Do I spot a hint of blueish CA along the twig? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it too. Not just the details of the dragonfly body are interesting, but the composition in itself is very well done. It's a pity that the tips of the wings inevitably result out of focus. --Harlock81 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Martin there's some CA along the top of the twig, Charles. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done new version uploaded. Charles (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simon Bening (Flemish - Villagers on Their Way to Church - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 17:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Simon Bening / Google Art Project, uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have quite a number of illuminated manuscripts, mostly thank to the Getty Museum, but this one is special. First, given the size, the resolution is huge. And the ordinary village life is quite unusual (see description). Most subjects are religious figures and scenes from the Bible, battles and people from the aristocracy. -- Yann (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann's comments. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. The painting could use some very careful, conservative restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spotted Sandpiper (non-breeding plumage) (32877802088).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 21:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created by Becky Matsubara - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent separation from the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question I want to support this and hope you can do a different crop with more on the left and less below. The balance is not right for me. And it is slightly over-exposed which can be easily adjusted. Charles (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I really think the crop needs changing for FP. Charles (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the size and well done --67.68.177.192 23:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blue and green is a very common color palette in landscapes but not something we see all the time in bird photography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not bad, but the crop is too tight. --Hockei (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just find the background too distracting. Definitely a QI though. Daniel Case (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the other hand I find the foreground to be distracting. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vihorlat 143.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 15:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice spot but by no means an excellent or outstanding composition. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Baso.--Peulle (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Baso. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop in on both sides a bit, especially getting rid of that tree on the left that makes the image feel so unbalanced, and we might have something. Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was the intention. --Milan Bališin (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sninský kameň (v zime) 074.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 19:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the light doesn't give me the wow feeling.--Peulle (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cold reality in a "dark winter forest". ;-) --Hockei (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo makes me snowy cold --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no single composition. JukoFF (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad shot but not striking enough. Also per Peulle -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition looks too chaotic and unharmonic to me. A pity because that spot looks interesting under these conditions. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An image that went horribly right. While it avoided blinding highlights off the snow, it went too far in the other direction: the shaded areas come across as large splotches of grey. Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion You could make it a bit warmer (WB). It would look much better according my tries. --Hockei (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would any other photo be suitable as a potential candidate from that day? From the link (Gallery/Sninský kameň) on the page of this photo? --Milan Bališin (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cataract Creek, Mount Tamalpais State Park (February 2019).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 11:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great motif, really well done! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best image of moss, and not the best image of the stream. I do not see why this photo should be the best. JukoFF

"[…] not the best image of the stream" – which other picture of Cataract Creek are you referring to? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nice scene and nice colors, but something about the composition seems off to me; it's not quite balanced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The dark heavy beam at the top is like obstructing the view. While the most interesting part is in my opinion the stream at the bottom, it is cut too tight. We want to see more of this water going out. I find the long exposure successful, but not the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I included the fallen redwood tree on purpose, as it's one of the characteristics of the creek. Unlike in most parts of Western Europe, forests here in Northern California are being left alone and look much more natural (without forest management cleaning everything up within a couple of weeks) than e.g. in Germany. Now, with regard to the "obstruction", I composed the image on purpose like that. To me, it evokes the question "Hey, what's behind that corner?" (which, for me, as someone who lives here, is what I'm asking myself all the time when I saunter through old redwood groves) – but in the end, it comes down to a matter of taste and I certainly respect your view of the matter. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like your alternative below -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For what it's worth, I really disagree with the opposers. I like this version much better. And it's precisely the tree trunk that differentiates this from many other photos of streams and is such a satisfying thing to see at the top of the picture frame. The other version just doesn't have the same satisfying alternation of lights and darks, and most of the moss is cut from the trunk. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth also, I really disagree with the supporters ;-) The composition of this version is too static for a stream with moving water. Here it seems to be only one subject, the rock with moss on the right, which is not captivating enough to be a whole. Unfortunately the eyes are drained to this part with no exit. I don't find the moss essential at the top, it looks more like a heavy and huge stop your way. At the bottom, the image seems sectioned, as if something was missing. We need this restful area after the fall -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support both alternatives are good! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment @Basile Morin: I get your point about the balance, though. So, here's another version with more water in the foreground and less tree… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this version is much better in my opinion, the composition is clearly improved due to these two reciprocal lines starting from the top and bottom corners at the left, making like a symmetry with a horizontal axis in the middle, where the sight is lead. Pleasant balance now. And the stream is also better. Nice shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version better. I like that you can see more of the stream. Also, a piece of light in the back, where my eyes focused first, is a whole, enclosed element. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support both alternatives are good! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this better. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, that's it! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm liking this version more and consider it an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Cataract Creek, Mount Tamalpais State Park (February 2019)-3444.jpg

File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 92.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2019 at 21:47:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Portrait of a chacma baboon (Papio ursinus) at dusk, Chobe National Park, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is hard to distinguish because the background creates a kind of camouflage. Also the picture looks dark, like underexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tend to agree with Basile. I'd ask if you'd like to darken the background for contrast, but there are voters here who care greatly about falsifying bokeh, even though it's per se blurred, so I think this one may have to be withdrawn. See what others think, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this existing FP could be used as a comparison. Charles (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile, Charles, my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. -- Karelj (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basile, Charles, Daniel, Ikan, Karelj FYI, I've uploaded a new version (brigther and cooler WB) --Poc o² 19:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better but the main problem stands in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough contrast with the background for FP, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but not quite FP. Charles (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you take on my suggestion according the file I've sent you, then I'll support your picture immediately. You can use my version if you want too. --Hockei (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you, Hockei, for your comment and email, I will work on it, but I'd like to start a new FPC in parallel, as this one is already dammed --Poc o² 21:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 01:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bahnhof Seefeld in Tirol (20181216 141254).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 00:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Simon04 - uploaded by Simon04 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me, the composition is rather scattered. You have many lines converging in the center, but then the shadows are going in a completely different direction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. Disturbing people in the background. Technical issues: highlights blown, loss of detail in the shadows. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basotxerri Perhaps you meant to oppose then? --Podzemnik (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: Sorry, thank you. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts.--Karelj (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the composition but agree with KoH that this isn't technically good enough to be an FP. It might pass QIC; I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:River bank of Don Khon with stilt wooden houses at golden hour from Don Det Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 03:08:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely sunset and clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any chance to get a bit more space on the left? The crop is tiny bit tight. Also, there are a few spots in the sky - some of them seem to be bugs but at least one looks like a dust spot. I've inserted a note. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done More space added on the left. It's almost sure there was no dust spot in the previous version, because 1) it was too small and too dark to be a dust spot, 2) I have a great technique to change my lenses to avoid dust when the body is open and I've never seen one in any previous picture, and 3) I've just checked my captor right now by shooting at f/32 on a white surface and the conclusion is also no dust spot visible here :-) But I've cloned out these birds which were not essential in the composition :-) Thanks, Podzemnik. Also pinging King of -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks Basile. One day, I'd like to see your "great technique" to change your lens :) Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I learned this trick on youtube a long time ago (video in French). The basic is to keep your body around your neck, and to prepare your lens in one hand like "in the starting block". As soon as you remove the previous lens, in less than one second, immediately you come with the other one, the body orientated to the bottom, so the dusts cannot infiltrate. It's a very quick operation, and you need good hands to catch both (sometimes heavy) lenses, but it's been working very well. And the day you have a single dust spot, bring it to the maintenance, and do the same :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks for the video. I should start using a neck strap. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I actually might want more to the right, but nitpicking aside, this is exactly the kind of appealing image that graces tourism brochures - when they're lucky enough to get this good a photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done More space on the right also, and thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do like this version a bit more than the last one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is fascinating but I don´t think the motif itself is extraordinary enough for a FP. --Milseburg (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with Milseburg, a rather ordinary postcard. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot - Lady in Blue - WGA5304.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2019 at 10:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Lady in Blue, created by Jean Baptiste Camille Corot - uploaded by JarektUploadBot - nominated by S. DÉNIEL -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support High level of detail. You can even see the swastikas on the cushions.--Peulle (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Altstadt-tuebingen-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 17:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Dktue - uploaded by Dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dktue (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info This picture actually has been voted a [valued image] already. --Dktue (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A VI, sure, but not an FP to me. The light is too dull, the highlights too bright and the sky is not very nice at all.--Peulle (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A VI, yes, but I would have opposed it for QI because of the problems in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Would it help to crop the image to get rid of the sky? --Dktue (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info My opinion, yes. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info I uploaded an updated version. Do I need to put a new candidate for this or can you guys update your votes? --Dktue (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC) (@Peulle: , @Daniel Case: )[reply]
Oppose - You should ping everyone who voted or commented above. I think this is much better, but I still have a problem with some of the remaining background, especially in the middle and right, and don't consider this version an FP, either. -- 20:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Ikan Kekek
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seljalandsfoss-2 (44669260075).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 18:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland
Info created by Bernd Thaller - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic scene, and the wildflowers are a nice touch. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, unlikely to get it without the people by the sound of it. Charles (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is over-processed, but maybe a new version could be submitted? Charles (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tozina (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the land actually slope like that or are we talking some lens distortion? (see horizon)--Peulle (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it's close to the center and it's not a stitched panorama, it's almost certainly natural. Curvature that bad near the center would result in ungodly distortion in the edges, which does not appear to be the case here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of my favourites corners in the world...still the image is tilted in cw direction (see the left half of the image) --Poc o² 20:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks oversaturated. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Oppose Seven Pandas (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Completely overprocessed. When looking at this I really feel more as being in front of a total fake scenery than a natural landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed, at least in the eyes of a Wikimedian who cares for natural colours and atmospheres, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, lurid! :\ Try 500px instead; they seriously love those overprocessed pictures over there. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but oveprocessed... If you have the RAW file try again, because the image has potential, however, the colors are too strong and therefore unnatural. Tournasol7 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. After reading all the opposes I was ready to see a total disaster area when I pixel-peeped. I didn't. Yes, the highlights on the cloud and the waterfall could be dimmed a bit. Yes, the sharpening of the ridgeline is a little hard to ignore. But I don't find the colors too lurid (maybe just a matter of personal taste, I guess). We have forgiven worse in the past here, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, the contrast is too high, don't you think? Look at the top part of the rock-cliff overhanging the walkway; there is quite a substantial bit of underexposure clipping. But I do agree it is actually quite non-chaotic when you pixel-peep. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we don't need to pixel-peep, it's really too obvious at screen size already Far too much clarity, contrast, vibrance, saturation, certainly a ton of local adjustments, and also Photoshop filters to make the view as artificial as possible. On the same Flickr account we can see this author is mainly a Photoshop player creating photomontages and fake pictures (1,2,3,4, 5, 6). Also hundreds of similar overprocessed works : 7, 8, 9, 10. But I agree this is a question of taste, and I'm sure if this picture got promoted here, it would reach a high score in POTY 2019, since this kind of render is the last trend. The only problem is in 10 years, when the tastes will have changed, then it will just look strange, like old and bizarre -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the ones you linked to, I find the processing here rather restrained. There's no soft focus, no too-obvious HDR. I don't think we should consider it in the context of his other work just because it wouldn't make FP here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although there is a lot of work involved, I agree with Basile.--Ermell (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this photo a lot, to a point. If the photographer were here, I would ask him to try dialing back the saturation and maybe working a little on the definition of the parts in shadow on the right. But the thing is, yes, the photo is flawed, but it's spectacular, so I ultimately come down on the side of supporting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. --Cart (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --Photographer 23:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Motte - Rossini et Georges IV - la soirée de Brighton.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 17:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Created by Charles Motte - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Should probably give some context here. This is an early 19th century lithograph, very much in the popular style of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Graininess is part of the medium. It depicts the meeting of King George IV and Rossini during the latter's time in the UK, with the typical humour of the time. The point is in the poses - the King is on the left. I believe the high framing relates to high ceilings being a sign of wealth, in any case, when the artist carefully gives a frame to the image to make sure the space is included, you include it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ursa Major2.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 14:05:47

Info Taking the broom to one more image. As per Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Doublons - Double nominations, S. DÉNIEL has found some more doubles. In this case a new better version of this image was promoted as part of a set, without the right 'delist and replace' procedure and we ended up with two FP versions of the same image. A previous attempt to replace just this image was made but failed. This delist request is just to formalize this in a proper way. --Cart (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC) (Original nomination)[reply]
Delist -- Cart (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Yann (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Peulle (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Karelj (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phimeanakas, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 08:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Phimeanakas ('celestial temple'), Angkor Thom, Cambodia. It's a Hindu temple in the Khleang style, built at the end of the 10th century, during the reign of Rajendravarman (from 941-968), then completed by en:Suryavarman ISuryavarman I in the shape of a three tier pyramid as a Hindu temple. All by me, Poc o² 08:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. A beautiful scene, good composition and clouds. My only objection is that the specular highlights are a bit harsh, especially on the building and the trees on the left, i.e. lighting could have been better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background (trees) colors and sharpness is practically same as these of temple - it is difficult to distinguish them. -- Karelj (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, kind of per Karelj: I don't find that the remains of the pyramid stand out in sharp relief, and the overall composition is not wowing me, although elements of a good composition are certainly there. I wonder what the pyramid would have looked like from the other side, light allowing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On top of what others wrote above, processing went a bit too far for me in the latest version (especially the sky). I think version #2 looks much less artificial. --El Grafo (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:20101229 Naqsh e Rostam Shiraz Iran more Panoramic.jpg (delist), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 21:35:12

Info Superseded by newer FP File:Naghsh-e rostam, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 20-24 PAN.jpg. (Original nomination)
Delist -- MER-C 21:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the current practice on Commons is to not delist an old FP when a newer, better FP comes along, unless the old FP falls far short of modern standards. You can start a discussion on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates if you'd like to change the delisting standards. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To me, that is clearly an FP by today's standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FP, yes. --XRay ^talk 06:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It meets FP, but would not have been promoted in the new one was available. But by the rules, I guess it has to stay. Charles (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hockei (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per King. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per King of Hearts. MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manhattan00.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 20:13:59

Info As per Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Doublons - Double nominations, S. DÉNIEL is sorting and fixing some of the cluttered FP gallery pages and has found some inconsistencies. In this case a new better version of this engraving was promoted without the right 'delist and replace' procedure and we ended up with two FP versions of the same image. This delist request is just to formalize this in a proper way. --Cart (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (Original nomination)[reply]
Delist -- Cart (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Peulle (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Charles (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Altstadt-tuebingen-1.jpg

File:173 - Torres del Paines - Janvier 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 17:54:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Martin St-Amant, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It would be nice to see the foot of the mountain on the right, if that is visible from this direction, but of course this is an impressive shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I´m not really wowed since to large parts of the montain are covered by haze and clouds. --Milseburg (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wooow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an obvious misspelling in the title, it should be "Torres del Paine" --Poc o² 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will rename the file once this is closed. Thanks for the information. --Yann (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Careening of a trawler in Sète.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2019 at 18:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What I like about this image: the light, the effects of the long exposure, the mood. But these are the things that make me oppose: the elements on the right and on the left look disturbing, and the mole behind the boat as well in some way. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per the concrete structure on the right as noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spot light in the boat, structures on the right and on the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prien Notgeld 1 Mark 1920.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2019 at 17:41:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Designed by Emil Ernst Heinsdorff (1887-1948), issued by the City of Prien am Chiemsee (1920), reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Baekje Cultural Land 037 (9703592123).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2019 at 03:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by travel oriented from Seoul, South Korea - uploaded by User:Teemeah - nominated by User:RTG, -- ~ R.T.G 03:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~ R.T.G 03:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, strong shadows, and the quality is not great at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see harsh light or strong, shadows. IMHO a good composition. Resolution may be higher. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad sky and just way too many things competing for the viewer's attention here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like a shot you'd take while scouting an area for subjects, a sketch of a future picture to take on another day. The light is meh, the fish are clumped at the edge of the pond. The subject certainly has potential, the composition is not bad, but I think that was just not a great moment for taking the shot. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gull Lake Mammoth September 2016 panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2019 at 00:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent! ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop is really tight on top. Can you do something to change this, maybe accepting loss of symmetry? --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Crop above is too tight for me. --Hockei (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Support --Hockei (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don´t miss anything interesting on the top. --Milseburg (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Seven Pandas, GerifalteDelSabana, Palauenc05, Uoaei1, and Moroder: @Hockei, Milseburg, Michielverbeek, and Daniel Case: Updated with more space -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The crop is better now, bot still too tight for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high resolution and I think the new version with more space on the top is improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, Aasee, Restaurants -- 2019 -- 3464-8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2019 at 21:17:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition there. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect but great composition and mood. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.06.18.-15-Viernheim--Feuerlibelle-Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2019 at 12:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scarlet dragonfly - Crocothemis erythraea, female

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info Normal female. But maybe it isn't fully coloured yet. I'm not quite sure. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As you say, I think it must be teneral. Crop's a bit tight for my taste. Charles (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ahmed Najji ^Talk 14:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Agios Nikolaos Beach and Kassos Island, Arkasa. Karpathos, Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2019 at 10:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel I want to go there and look for animals at the water's edge. --Hockei (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate format (this wourd rather ask for panorama format), not very sharp in the background, and in general not striking for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, but nothing special. I do not see reason for the FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty scene, but not IMO a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.04.30.-07-Froschkanzelsee Lorsch--Graue Fleischfliege-Paarung.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2019 at 13:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Sarcophagidae (Flesh Flies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How big is this insect? It would be good to add that information to your file description (and, if you feel inclined, the en.wikipedia article). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info I don't know more how big they were. Maybe about 15 mm. --Hockei (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - If they're anywhere near that size, that makes this photo all the more impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice action. Charles (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Der fliegende isländer (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Sarcophagidae (Flesh Flies)

File:Helen Keller circa 1920 - restored.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2019 at 05:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by unknown Los Angeles Times photographer, restored/uploaded/nominated by Rhododendrites — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was in my candidates' list. --Yann (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abzeronow (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Assassin bug (Rhynocoris iracundus) with bee (Apis ssp) prey.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2019 at 15:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info The assassin bug lay in wait on a flower head (Eryngium sp.) then impaled a visiting bee with its strong proboscis (rostrum). It is now injecting venom-laced saliva to liquify the bee's internal organs. Nice. [The ant has photobombed the shot]. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It would be good to add the name of the flower to the description or categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the contrast between the bright colors on the bugs and flowers and the earth tones in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Exterior of the Castle of Valencay 20.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2019 at 14:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is creative photography! Yann (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like bad HDR. Sky does not look natural, with halo round high-contrast edges. The flowers and grass in the middle look radioactive. Sorry, I get the creative composition, but it is just over-processed. -- Colin (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I tried to find what you're objecting to, but I like the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I also like the creative elements of the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The umbrella, main element, is in the shadow. The left part with the wall looks intrusive and make the composition cluttered. The post-treatment is a bit too strong. And I don't really like the angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, the colours and the light --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very regretful oppose A great idea/composition, technically not so much with the bright halo around the umbrella and other edges plus overall overprocessed. Sky is ok though, a normal "storm leaving" sky. Agree with Basile about the left side and possibly also the right. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wolfgang Moroder --Harlock81 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamb - Animal Park Muggensturm 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2019 at 18:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turquoise-fronted amazon (Amazona aestiva) head.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2019 at 15:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info In the Pantanal, Brazil. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent! ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unsharp at the throat, but very good overall --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me just the DOF isn't enough. To bad, because otherwise it is very good. --Hockei (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cyclamen coum (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2019 at 05:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Myrsinaceae.
Info Cyclamen coum. Between fallen leaves. Delicate small bright pink flowers on slender stems above the marbled leaves. (flowering time February march).
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and light -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just weak Support as DoF is a bit too short, so that the flowers in the background are unsharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some posterization and CA on the flowers. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seven Pandas (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not understand why the colors seems so artifacts to me, but that is. Have you enhanced them? Or , maybe, was the sun near to the horizon? --Harlock81 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I have improved them. see the new download under the photo. Cyclamen have delicate colors, which sometimes go a bit darker to the outside.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you have improved them with respect to what? The colors are definitely unnaturals for wild sowbreads. Compare them to File:Cyclamen (8457919409).jpg or File:Eastern Sowbread - Cyclamen coum (32909809374).jpg, for instance. --Harlock81 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: the colors of Cyclamen coum vary from white to dark pink and everything in between. View this photo for a white variation. [photo for a white variation.] --Famberhorst (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow this discussion with interest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, colors of the petals of Cyclamen coum may be many, yet most of them shows the same shade of magenta. I've found few pictures which reproduce the same colors of your photos: this picture (from here) and this one (from here). --Harlock81 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: From the many colors of cyclamen I specially selected this color to photograph. Because I think it is a very beautiful and striking color. Opinions differ about tastes.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you have misunderstood me: it's not just a question of taste. I was just surprised (and a bit dubious, I admit) that a wild plant, in a natural reserve (De Famberhorst), could show flowers of the same colors of common cultivars, while most of the plants of the same specie shows a different shade of magenta.

I had thinked that either the red balance could have been altered accidentaly, or the plant was a cultivar and not a wild one, or the specie could not have been correctly identified. That's all. I thank you for your explanations. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extra information: Cyclamen coum are not indigenous in the Netherlands. They fall under the Stinsenplanten. They are fairly hardy, wild plants. The cyclamen sow in different colors. Color is also selected.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how enclosed the composition is. That's hard with natural objects. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ivanovo asv2018-08 img58 aerial view.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2019 at 12:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Aerial photo of Ivanovo, Russia ------all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good total view of the town --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough detail for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are the roofs on the lower left all inclined? --Llez (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. -- Karelj (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Lies. After correction an FP for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jean Baptiste Camille Corot - Interrupted Reading - 1922.410 - Art Institute of Chicago.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2019 at 10:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Jean Baptiste Camille Corot - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by S. DÉNIEL -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canterbury Cathedral Rood Screen, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2019 at 17:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info I visited Canterbury Cathedral recently, and chanced upon this lovely photo when looking at the Wikipedia page. I gather the author is a bit of a legend round here, and I intend to nominate a few more of his images soon. Hopefully you'll agree that this one's rather good - it's already featured on English Wikipedia. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. Fun with the medieval CCTV. --Code (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, sharp photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a pity that Diliff has left! --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't really ... he edited as recently as last month. But raising a small child will certainly take a lot of the time that you used to waste productively online.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per others, especially Uoaei1. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is amazing. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cappella Passo Falzarego Sass Stria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2019 at 13:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hm. Quality is great and it's a nice place but somehow I think the point of view was not chosen perfectly. The chapel doesn't separate enough from the background. I'd prefered a composition with blue sky in the background of the chapel and the mountain right from the chapel (means you should have stepped some meters to the right). But of course I've never been there so I can't say if that would have been possible. --Code (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that's a "Walk Out To Winter" picture! Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral basically per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral To me it also feels like taking the shot from further to the left would have provided better results Poc o² 17:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ll go back and will take one from the right and one from the left hoping to make happy both of you --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like it but would like to see the continuation of the hill to the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I ask me, if it would have been possible to go more to the right to cover the visible roof by the chapel --Llez (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 101-104 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2019 at 21:26:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of unique Deadvlei, Namib-Naukluft Park, Namibia. All by me, Poc o² 21:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~stitching errors visible in two places at the top of the dune.~~ Charles (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Charles: Fixed --Poc o² 17:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good now. Charles (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Minimal stitching problem --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the people you see on the ridgeline; you don't appreciate how big this dune is until you look at the image full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the places on my bucket list --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite epic panorama. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Agama roqueño de Namibia (Agama planiceps), parque nacional de Namib-Naukluft, Namibia, 2018-08-05, DD 82.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2019 at 22:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Namib rock agama (Agama planiceps), Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia. All by me, Poc o² 22:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure this is sharp enough for FP, but that depends on how big this agama is. How big is this species? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: About 15 cm or 6 inches Poc o² 18:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's some pretty heavy posterization going on in the background. --El Grafo (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not much I can do about that El Grafo, --Poc o² 18:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, considering its size and beauty. I find that background good - it's a wall, and it's not a huge blur and has a pleasant color. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a great fan of this view of a reptile and the head and tail is blurred. If it's 15cm, this must be a baby as females grow to around 25cm, the size I photographed. Charles (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Poc o² 09:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.18.-14-Viernheim--Braunkolbiger Braun-Dickkopffalter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2019 at 15:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Hesperiidae (Skippers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm torn because it's a great photo of the butterfly, but the foreground in the lower right and to some extent the lower left is distracting to me. I think that since wow is relevant to FPC, I'm going to have to go with my gut on this, as I don't think the overall composition is that good or pleasant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very small. Have you uploaded full size image? 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. --Hockei (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot but too small for FP. Charles (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While it technically has enough pixels, the limitations of this small file show in other ways. Heavy processing is apparent on the insect, and there's some color noise in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination, but: Small butterfly, big distance. So it's not too small according the guideline. And I don't see colour noise in the background. There are so many strong noisy pictures they got the FP-Status. So this reason also is questionable. --Hockei (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruïne Casti Munt Sorn Gieri Waltensburg (actm) 17.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2019 at 16:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Switzerland
Info Trees grow between the remains of the ruins of a castle Munt Sorn Gieri.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It works (although it looks as if they grow behind, not between, the ruins). Charles (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yeah, pretty interesting picture. Please work on the English-language file description, though. Your description here is much clearer (and more English-language). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing interesting or wow on this composition, sorry but I want feel something without needing to read any historical value of the photo --Wilfredor (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stuben Arlbergpass, Böhringer 2019.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2019 at 11:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info c/u - nominated by Böhringer -- Böhringer (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Neutral I must change to neutral until the flaws are repaired. --Hockei (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC) --Hockei (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also for this kind of picture you should apply perspective correction, and please clear the strong CAs at the summit on the left. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per the mentioned criticism. --Milseburg (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Phatastic mood. Quality not perfect, but to me still enough for support. --A.Savin 23:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: Just curious, do you mean phantasmatic? :p ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are also a number of small dust spots visible in the brighter part of the sky. If you fix that and the other problems noted above, I will support. I would like to see another version of this photo as an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now per Uoaei1 and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs perspective correction and dust spot removal. Charles (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Aristeas; also I'd point to CA near the edges that needs to be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition, but the issues should be fixed. --XRay ^talk 14:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow! --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning compo. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christof46 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Never mind the technical issues, I think it's a great picture. MartinD (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St George Slaying the Dragon (replica od Middle Age painting, c. 1420).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2019 at 17:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
Info St George Slaying the Dragon (replica od Middle Age painting, c. 1420). Unknown creator, replica by Vladimir Makuc - uploaded, nominated by -- Mile (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - To be clear, this is a photo of the painting itself, not a replica of the painting, correct? In other words, it's a reproduction, not a replica, right? I think the filename should be changed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least the "od" typo should be corrected. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: It's a faithul reproduction made by Makuc in 1958, similar to this one. MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. And so specified if I read enough lines of description in the file. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All true. I think name is OK. --Mile (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's an interesting painting, but I don't find myself wowed by a faithful copy of a painting with this degree of damage. If this were a photo of the painting itself, I might have a higher tolerance for the damage, but it just seems odd to go through all of the trouble to paint a copy and be this mechanical about making sure every bit of damage is in the copy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reasons to do a faithfull copy of a fresco may be numerouses. For istance, retain the aspect of a fresco which has been produced on a wall that has been subsequently interested by structural damages or by moisture, which could determine the lost of the fresco itself; or else, allow more people to see the fresco in an accessible way; or to organically develope in a museum the history of art related to a country or to a colture. The copy may become itself an artwork. This photography continues what was started by Vladimir Makuc on 1958. --Harlock81 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cruce en bote fiordo Amalia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2019 at 21:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Godiespi - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The hills in the background don't really feel fully 3-dimensional at larger resolutions. But please nominate at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much of the image is unsharp; also the shaded background doesn't, in this case, make a good contrast with the lit foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louis-Jean-François Lagrenée - Marte y Venus, alegoría de la Paz, Jean Paul Getty Museum, 1770.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2019 at 07:37:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Louis-Jean-François Lagrenée / Getty Museum, uploaded by Artwork, nominated by Yann (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the allegory. -- Yann (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there's too much chroma noise.--Peulle (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great painting, very high resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IODP Kernlager Bremen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2019 at 09:04:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created by V.Diekamp (MARUM in Bremen) - uploaded by NiStMa - nominated by S. DÉNIEL -- (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Important VI if nominated at VIC, but for FP, I oppose because nothing is really sharp and the light is glary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serious perspective issues. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the perspective is OK for this kind of shot, but the sharpness is not impressive given the fairly small size.--Peulle (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, in this case the perspective is ok since it makes you feel the weight and number of cores; it adds to the composition. Perspective correction in such a small space will not make for a good photo. However the glary light and other tech issues are a problem. A pity. --Cart (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Church interiors = 500 photos vs laboratory interiors = 0. Well, we change nothing. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 09:45:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Suliformes
Info Exemplar of a reed cormorant (Microcarbo africanus), Chobe National Park, Botswana. All by me, -- Poc o² 09:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 09:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downsized. "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Basile, do you want to bring this ardous discussion to this FPC? As said again and again, what you cite is a recommendation. Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go? --Poc o² 11:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blablabla -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree with you. The photographer isn't obliged to upload the biggest picture what the camera can do. This picture really is large enough. --Hockei (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say anything against the upload of high resolution files ? Exactly the opposite -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand what you wrote above? Downsizing a very big picture is an established practice here in the FP-fuss to make it appear in better quality (even if I never did that). I think it isn't a problem with this picture. That's all I want to say. --Hockei (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope "Downsizing a very big picture" is NOT "an established practice". But this file seems big enough to me. Charles (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guideline is a guide not an absolute rule, hence the name. And it says "should not be downsized", not "must not be downsized", so there is still some leniency for downsized photos and we have promoted a lot of such images in recent times. Some are even in the POTY finals now. We can strive to not downsize photos and frown upon heavily downsized nominations, but they are not 100% forbidden. If you want this to happen you can start a discussion (yet again) on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition. But I don't see the focus on the head / eyes. It's more on the tail. --Hockei (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hockei, please do not use the {{n}} template since the FPC Bot can't read it. Use the {{neutral}} instead. I have corrected that for you. Yes, it is a very annoying but it's what it is right now. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't know that. --Hockei (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not because of the downsizing, if there was any, but because if there was downsizing it didn't do the picture any favors, technically. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. Poco writes above: "Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go?". Prima donna photographers can go take a hike. We're here to take, upload and select the best images we can for Commons. Take criticism or ignore it, but don't make threats and sabotage. If you start "vandalising" your uploads out of some petty dispute at FPC or QI, and if FPC/QI is actually causing you to reduce the quality of your uploads, perhaps you should take a break from FPC/QI. You should be uploading your best images in best quality regardless of what anyone here thinks of them.

On the matter of downsizing, this is still a 20MP image from a 600mm lens. According to DxoMark this lens on a 5DSR only resolves about 18MP and with a 2x extender on it, that's only going to get worse. So perhaps 12MP, which would imply the sensor has double the linear resolution of the lens+extender. So I think it is reasonable if one's sensor is hugely out-resolving one's optics, that some downsizing of the result may be appropriate. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping, it is silly if we treat 12MP, 20MP, 36MP and 50MP cameras to the same 100dpi pixel peeping on our monitors. So, Basile I don't think your getting so upset about some relatively mild downsizing in a 20MP photo is helping the project. Every single one of Diliff's interior cathedral photos are downsized, often by 50%, but they are still detailed and high resolution and worthy of FP. I suspect the issues with this photo are that the focus isn't on the eye, and that at 1/400s the bird may have moved. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poco is trying to blame me for his personal choice to downsize pictures. "You already managed" he says, as if I was responsible for the deficiency of his camera. This disempowerment is unhealthy for two reasons : First, because everyone should take their actions. As you decide not to follow the recommendations, that's your own problem, not the neighbor's. When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator. Then, because this interpretation of my speech is absolutely wrong and misleading. My request is to keep the best resolution available (after upload), which means 50 Mpx would be perfect (though not mandatory so big). Poco is like saying "I cannot cook tasty carots because you don't let me waste my haricots". Pitiful nonsense. Good haricots should not be wasted is my humble opinion, but cooked carots can be tasty, too. Easy. We're free to vote here, to express a subjective opinion regarding a candidature through the standards and guidelines of the project. We can agree or disagree with a vote, but Poco turns the situation againt this freedom, insinuating my contribution is disrupting since I dare to follow the recommendations. Lol. As I said many times, if you want to discuss and change the rules, do it (here is the talk page). I may respect them too, afterwards.

Concerning the size of the file, I also agree with Daniel it didn't do the picture any favors, technically. The focus is on the wings, not on the head -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Diego. Can I join you on your hike? Colin has suggested I take a break too. Charles (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your "I will upload fewer widlife images of encyclopaedic value to Wikipaedia projects if the QI theshold is increased. Is that what the community wants?" is a very similar threat to sabotage your uploads if you don't get your way, it sounds like you two are made for each other. -- Colin (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the offensive 'prima donna', 'go take a hike', 'vandalising' and 'sabotage' language. Am I the only person who considers Colin's language and attitude threatening and offensive? Charles (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and Poco are the only ones here threatening to throw their toys out of the pram when they get upset. That is not the way to deal with criticism at FPC. We might not all agree on the "rules" or whether something is an FP or not, but once you start making threats to upload fewer images or to downsize them all out of spite, the only grown-up response is to ask you both to grow up or go play somewhere else. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. Am I the only person who considers Colin's language and attitude threatening and offensive? (see discussion started on main FP talk page) Charles (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacks of sharpness on the head Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination As it's up to me to close this nom and stop a discussion which has nothing to do with the cormorant, I will do that and will answer in the FP candidates talk page Poc o² 18:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theodor-Heuss-Brücke, 1902231957, ako.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 07:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info View from Kastel (Hesse, Germany) to Mainz (Rhineland-Palatine, Germany) over the river Rhine during blue hour with the illuminated bridge "Theodor-Heuss-Brücke" on the left. Please consider that this is a long exposure through a ND filter and that I did not at all downsample this picture. I wanted to take some bracketed shots for an HDR but the light situation changed too quickly so this is a single exposure. All by me. --Code (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very pretty, but how near real life is it? Charles (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the kind of comment that kept me away from FPC the last months. Thank you for reminding me on this, Charlesjsharp. My wikibreak was still not long enough to help me get a cooler attitude, sorry. BTW, how near real life is the use of a flash in wildlife photography? --Code (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't mean that it wasn't a artistic image, it is. But you did imply it was 'real' by saying blue hour. I never try to hide that I've used flash in wildlife photography. Charles (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, this is real blue hour photo. If you make a long exposure shot at blue hour, it will make the sky/scene look like midday. To bring it back to what it actually looks like, you use a ND filter. That filter sort of "cancels out" the "brightening" of the image the long-exposure does. I just guess you haven't made enough of such photos to know this technique. --Cart (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any. I don't need to. The process you describe produces a nice image, but does not equal a 'real blue hour photo'. Charles (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A similar picture, also reviewed by Code last month, appeared completely overprocessed for many of us. This electric blue seems artificial, but the question of real colors is interesting yes -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only parameter you manipulate with this technique is time since the ND filter is totally neutral (ND stands for neutral density), the color is not affected. Color is controlled by other processes. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, using an ND filter is not really complicated. Set your filter, set long-exposure : done. Kind of f/32 ISO 50. But it doesn't mean the saturation has not been pushed too far later in Lightroom. Like this blue snow that was "accurate white balance" in Code's eyes -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saturation is another discussion, and if you don't agree with it you should 'oppose' on those grounds. Charles was questioning if this was indeed blue hour or just the filter. Re snow photo: Snow can often appear to look blue to the naked eye in the evening/night since it reflects the blue sky and the blue of shadows enhance it, so not that far-fetched but can also be exaggerated in post. --Cart (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue hour sky is not like that in reality (neither blue snow), otherwise it would look familiar and not so strange. This picture is obviously manipulated and slightly oversaturated, see Blue hour on Wikipedia for more accurate examples of how this blue looks like. That one is a kind of concept of "blue hour" working in imagination or in memory, but not a natural blue, faithful in real life. Such kind of electric color you meet it either at noon only, or on your screen after increasing the levels a bit far in post-process. But of course it makes your concept very striking like something incredible where there is only a bridge with yellow lights and some stones in the foreground. I'm not saying this would be a bad picture with natural intensity, but we need to see the truth to judge honestly. For now it looks quite uninteresting to me because this is rather an ordinary scenery where the colors have been multiplied x times. A similar composition with long exposure that was much more successful is this bridge of San Francisco also with stones in the foreground, but natural colors. Day shot, though really exceptional angle and view, that make the difference. Cart says "you should oppose" and perhaps I will do so, but for now it's not necessary because this nomination has already been withdrawn -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Was not my best idea to nominate this. Sorry for that. --Code (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-withdrawal votes

Support I know that this have been "withdrawned", but I support anyway. Very pleasant composition. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Christian Ferrer (who might perhaps take over this nom, I would, but I have two slots filled now). Good motif and great technical achievement. --Cart (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: may I ask you to strike your "withdrawn"? it will be much simplier for us, rather than we make another nomination. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new nom is not necessary, you can simply strike the withdraw and write that you take over the nom. That is the way it has been done several times before. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Beautiful. Christian, do you want to take over the nomination? Let us know. If not, I may take it over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - But before we consider doing that: Code, would you be OK with someone else taking over the nomination, or do you as photographer prefer for the photo not to be considered anymore for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Code, Is your camera clock correct? According to The Photographer's Ephemeris 19:57 is after astronomical twilight, and well after "blue hour" so the sky would be very dark, almost black, with the sun nearly 20° below the horizon. It seems more likely to be 18:57 with the sun 10° below, which is around the very end of "blue hour". Even with the 18:57 time, I'd expect this to be on the dark side, rather than bright side of blue (see Commons:Photography terms#Time of day). Perhaps a -1 exposure adjustment would keep it looking more natural for everyone? Of course, a long exposure generates other "artistic" effects, particularly in the water and with the plane, and your camera aperture generates the stars on the lights, so perhaps you are not aiming for 100% natural? -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A beautiful scene but significant parts of the facades in the background are blown out. Lights are fine and expected, but actual masonry less so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, now let's close this candidature after 48 hours it has been withdrawn, because nobody will never oppose it in state, by respect for the nominator (that would be nonsense after this white flag). Re-nomination will always be possible -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zwenkauer See, 1902271405, ako-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 07:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Zwenkauer See is a lake near the city of Leipzig, Saxony, Germany. It was calm but somewhat hazy, resulting in a slight softness of the background. All by me. --Code (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Was not my best idea to nominate this. Sorry for that. --Code (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might I ask why you think that? I quite like the image, it's very simple in composition but I think it works well artistically. Cmao20 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20, you may not have been around FPC lately so you probably don't know how hostile the FPC is towards artistic photos these days. Especially some less diplomatic users are rather vocal about this. It's the reason why I've made the same decision as Code and not nominate my own photos here any more. I admire Code's guts to take a chance here again, and I followed this to see what the reaction to his nominations might be. --Cart (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a shame. You are right that I am only new around here, but I liked the picture anyway, and I was planning to vote for it because I enjoyed the composition. No matter anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there are too many users who confuse the goal of Commons and its FP with that of the Wikipedias and their FPs. This occurs even if the goal of Commons states very clearly that it is a repository of images for all kinds of projects (including eleven other wiki-projects), not just the Wikipedia. I do wish people would take off the Wikipedia-blinders and see the bigger picture. --Cart (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, I think it's a pity that you've decided not to nominate your pictures for FP anymore. I know it's hard sometimes to find the motivation and inner strength to nominate your work here. But I think your nominations were bringing fresh winds into the FPC. That other people are rather vocal about their ideas of what FP should be about? Well, I'm sure a lot of other people enjoyed your nominations here. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Podzemnik, we'll see. Take a look at my talk page. --Cart (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always enjoyed your nominations and sometimes voted for them. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gwbstorm2.img.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2019 at 02:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is a photograph of the George Washington Bridge when a storm was passing over Washington Heights.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created and uploaded by Mclovin1103 - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it's a long exposure, but it's still unsharp where it shouldn't be, and kind of dim overall. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really like the composition and drama, but it's really small for a current-day FP nominee, so I'm torn. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does have a nice composition, but that's pretty much the only thing counting in its favour. I don't think it's one of the finest images on Commons in 2019.--Peulle (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, even for a night shot, and the quality is not great -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Banqueting House.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2019 at 03:49:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm inclined to support despite some problems just because it's such a strange composition, but how does a black sheep have a mostly white coat? Could someone please explain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep come in all versions and combinations of white, grey, black and brown, just like cats, dogs and horses do. See: Sheep breeds. On the island of Gotland, Sweden where I used to live, most sheep have black heads and grey bodies. If you think this looks strange, take a look at Splotch-faced Sheep, Madras Red sheep or Awassi sheep. :) --Cart (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Basile and Cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Slightly oversharpened, but still acceptable post-treatment in my view. Nice light and I like the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky is a little bit noisy, but acceptable. --XRay ^talk 14:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So it is oversharpened. But it is also a great composition with nice light. The two sheep are perfectly balanced and positioned in the frame. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. At 100% it looks artificial like a digital painting or a scene digitally rendered ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good picture but overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Karelj (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened resulting in strange halos, could be avoided with better processing. --Cart (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foro Traiano dal Vittoriano Roma sera.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2019 at 05:28:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice shot of Trajan's forum. I keep thinking about the mountain that was behind it - carved out by slaves... by hand.--Peulle (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The main tower looks tilted but everything else seem to be straight so I guess it's tilted in reality. Great shot, the shadow on the trees doesn't bother me at all. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cloud shadows are just subtle enough. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mute swan (Cygnus olor) looking for food in waves, Windermere, England.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2019 at 11:24:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info All by me. Mute swan (Cygnus olor) looking for food in waves of the lake Windermere, England. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice closeup.--Peulle (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good focus to the head --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different from the usual swan-in-water pic. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice light but it lacks details on the head and the left side is cropped too tight. Only the beak is sharp, the feathers are slightly out of focus. Compare to this one recently promoted for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lacks details? Wow. Amazing photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Charles (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Znojmo Old Town Panorama from Castle 20190217.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2019 at 07:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Czech_Republic
Info View from the Castle to the Old Town of Znojmo, Czech Republic. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that this image is not afraid to show us its most prominent feature from behind (The highlight on the right side of the back of the church could be dimmed a bit, though). Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done New version with dimmed highlights uploaded, thanks for your feedback --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Useful, but not a good composition to my mind, as the right half is basically lots of haze. I'd rather see a composition with only the buildings on the left, and maybe extending somewhat further to the left. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.07.03.-12-Wendisch Rietz--Glubig-Melang-Fliess.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 06:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info I took this picture series from a swimming kayak. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the composition. I'm glad you noticed it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks very nice as a thumbnail but the full size has some problems; green CA in the trees, for instance (see top left). Also loses sharpness rapidly as we move away from the centre.--Peulle (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle; I also see some dust spots (or droplets on the lens?) in the portion of the pond near lower right where it's mostly reflected sky. Also, re the composition: it looks like something that should either be part of a larger image or could be cropped down to something else. It just doesn't, for me, stand out from other pictures of woodland reflected in a small waterbody on a beautiful day. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no dust spot or what ever you think to see. It is a living water in that swim animals and things from plants. The rest what you wrote I don't understand what you mean. I just show the "Fließ" and like the reflecting pants (and the clouds) in the water. --Hockei (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hockei (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hockei, it would really help us who maintain this page if you used the normal {{withdrawn}} and added you signature after it. Your way of inserting your name in the template makes it a bit hard to spot since the text "I withdraw my nomination" gets hidden. We are happy to help you with closing, archiving, etc. but please make it more visible. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: According the German instructions I can write in this way: Nominierungen können vom Einsteller jederzeit zurückgezogen werden. Dies geschieht einfach durch das Schreiben von „I withdraw my nomination“ (eng. Ich ziehe meine Nominierung zurück) oder durch Hinzufügen von {{withdraw|~~~~}}. --Hockei (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[OK] Fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blaubeuren Kloster Kirche Flügelaltar 01a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2019 at 18:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info Winged altar at Blaubeuren Abbey Church, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo, good enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Place de l'Horloge in Nimes 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2019 at 16:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reckon you must be employed by the mayor of a sunnier town nearby! Charles (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very funny remark by Charles! I like the mood, though I'm quite surprised not to see anyone running. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough for me. Also, you appear to be aligned with the right edge of the clock tower, causing the lines at the bottom to converge in a somewhat unusual way. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very special IMO.--Peulle (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to see a 'bad weather' photo instead of the usual blue skies. The square is beautiful and the threatening dark clouds create a very special atmosphere. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan Kekek and B2Belgium --Famberhorst (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose thumbs up for the weather, but per others: the tower looks twisted. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dramatic sky but the building is not exceptional enough for me to find the picture awesome -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Margaret Pattens Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info An extremely high-resolution image of the interior of St Margaret Pattens, a church located on Eastcheap in Central London. The current church was built by Sir Christopher Wren in 1687, and is notable for its 200-foot-high spire. I love how the resolution of this image is so high that the lettering of the Lord's Prayer and the Apostle's Creed next to the altar can be read in pin-sharp detail. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the light reflex on the painting is a pity. --Code (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think however this is another example of Diliff including too much vertical. They eye is drawn up to the ceiling rose, which is oddly angled due to extreme perspective. The orange-brown of the ceiling is a bit distracting. If one takes a cut just below the ceiling line, you get a much more natural scene that I think is an improvement. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sensible point. I personally don't find the distortion of the ceiling rose distracting but I can see where you are coming from. I find your suggested crop featurable too, but we'll see what others think. Cmao20 (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:'the Pride of the German Fleet' - the battleship 'bayern', the first German ship to carry 15-inch guns, surrenders, never having fired her guns in action Art.IWMART1636.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2019 at 08:00:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Oscar Parkes - uploaded by Ducksoup - nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - Good war painting, but if it's oil on canvas, please specify that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The museum imperial war written in "Object details" - Support: paper, medium: wash. Work done --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's odd to use the word "support" for the materials used to create an artwork, which is probably why I didn't see that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really special, i.e. neither the subject, the author, the style, or the reproduction. --Yann (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --Milseburg (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't look like this will pass, but I quite like the painting. I feel that it captures well the grandeur and power of the battleship. Cmao20 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - Lady of Shalott.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2019 at 20:38:33

Info One of the last two. As per Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Doublons - Double nominations, S. DÉNIEL is sorting and fixing some of the cluttered FP gallery pages and has found some inconsistencies. In this case a new better version of this engraving was promoted as part of a set without the right 'delist and replace' procedure and we ended up with two FP versions of the same image. This delist request is just to formalize this in a proper way. --Cart (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC) (Original nomination)[reply]
Delist -- Cart (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Peulle (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Karelj (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Although, to be fair, I don't think we actually had D&R on Commons at the time. That came bizarrely late in COM:FPC history. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, better safe than sorry. Now it's done properly. :-) --Cart (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Cart (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2019 at 20:36:38

Info One of the last two. As per Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Doublons - Double nominations, S. DÉNIEL is sorting and fixing some of the cluttered FP gallery pages and has found some inconsistencies. In this case a new better version of this engraving was promoted as part of a set without the right 'delist and replace' procedure and we ended up with two FP versions of the same image. This delist request is just to formalize this in a proper way. --Cart (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC) (Original nomination)[reply]
Delist -- Cart (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Peulle (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist To be quite honest, I don't see much of a difference apart from the crop, but the newer version appears top be a little bit more contrasty. --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @El Grafo: It was at the least from the same scan, so it wouldn't surprise me; I think the point of the change was consistency with the rest of the set. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Karelj (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Cart (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue-tailed damselfies (Ischnura elegans) mating female typica 4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 10:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent catch -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one! --El Grafo (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clivipollia pulchra 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 06:34:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created & uploaded by User:Llez - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Particularly beautiful shell and outstanding photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vanilla caramel -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Ikan for the nomination --Llez (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the upload! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poc o² 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 041-049 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 09:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the huge sand dunes around Deadvlei, Namib-Naukluft Park, Namibia. All by me, Poc o² 09:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 09:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very good when small stitching error on top of dune corrected. Charles (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Charles: Done Poc o² 12:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive. Charles (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now this I want on my wall (And it's nice to see everyone being forgiving about the banding. The struggle is real). Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amazing at 50%, and then zooming in to 100% to see the surreal scene of all the people in the distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stunning picture! MartinD (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shadows on dunes. --Podzemnik (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.--Peulle (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muy grandota --Wilfredor (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary work. I do feel some parts of the image are not quite as sharp as others, especially at the far right hand side, but at this resolution it doesn't matter. Cmao20 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum (retouched).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2019 at 20:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by unknown artist / Getty Museum, edited and uploaded by Der Angemeldete, nominated by Yann (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Yann: Why did you choose this version and not the original picture? --Harlock81 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The statue doesn't personally wow me, but the technical accomplishment does - very high-res and sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Southern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis ruficollis).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 10:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but you should consider to make the WB a bit cooler, this is quite yellowish --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks, Charles (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Jpcomic (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, St.-Paulus-Dom, Altarinsel -- 2019 -- 3815-9.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2019 at 09:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 09:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 09:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would have been fun for a vertorama going all the way to the top but this is great as is. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but can you do something to reduce the brightness of the window on the right? --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made a HDRI to reduce the very bright sun and I've reduced the lights too. The glass is not colored and the sun was very bright. --XRay ^talk 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
… I just improved the light at the window a little bit. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 05:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, St.-Paulus-Dom, Alter Chor -- 2019 -- 3789-93.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2019 at 09:40:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 09:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 09:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely sharp. Good work with tone mapping. --Podzemnik (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk)
Support --Llez (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vrouwenmantel (Alchemilla mollis) d.j.b 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2019 at 17:52:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena Alchemilla mollis covered with raindrops.
Info Alchemilla mollis covered with raindrops. Alchemilla mollis showing the beading effect of water on its leaves
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Between the leaves and the raindrops, you've made a very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not perfect but a lot of its issues result from the long exposure, which I presume the photographer deemed necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it, the colours and the spread of the droplets. :)--Peulle (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice Poc o² 20:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jpcomic (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--El Grafo (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.06.18.-26-Viernheim--Schwarzkolbiger Braun-Dickkopffalter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2019 at 21:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Hesperiidae (Skippers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This one is great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of backlighting for this type of shot and it's a small image. Charles (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely colors but weird background noise.Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alright, I like it now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info I don't really know what you mean with weird background noise. But I tried to reduce it and uploaded a new version. --Hockei (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still a great picture, and I like the backlighting, which is unusual here, and don't understand the problem with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Considering it's less than 30 mm big, I think the quality is good. Backlighting is not ideal but makes it interesting enough for me to say "wow, nice". --Podzemnik (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the composition, but I'm not convinced that the quality is necessarily the best we can offer. The small size of the butterfly means this is partly excusable and tips me into the support camp. Cmao20 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smyghålet, Smögen 2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2019 at 02:48:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Kuriosatempel - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just you and your loved one, the sea and the sunset ... that's romance! --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it's pretty good for a phone pic, it's not an exceptional composition, not when we've got much better pictures of the West Coast of Sweden from another contributor. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's pretty, but "all sunsets are pretty". I don't think it's one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Also a bit frustrating since I know that standing at that point and facing the opposite direction, you get one of the best and most photogenic views on the Swe west coast. --Cart (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not sure how I feel about this composition, but the picture is rather small for a current-day FP nominee and the sky is blotchy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Fischer.H (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the composition is lovely, and the photo is really good for a phone camera, but the detail is a bit too 'blotchy' at full resolution for me to support. Cmao20 (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Webysther 20190126135602 - Aplastodiscus ferido e com lavas de moscas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2019 at 06:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Webysther (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's really disgusting, IMO, but I'll concede that it's a good picture. But for FP, I think you need the species, not just the genus of the frog. Does anyone know the species? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A tad bit too much contrast, wouldn't ya think? ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Talking with biologists they said to use Aplastodiscus Sp. ('The abbreviation "sp." is used when the actual specific name cannot or need not be specified') because it is not possible to know the species accurately with the provided images. --Webysther (talk)
Info I did not know that myiasis in amphibians were rare events, if I had known I would have collected the animal. --Webysther (talk)
Provisional support High contrast, yes, but not at any technical cost to me. I added an English description; my support is conditioned on getting the exact species, however.Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral In six days this has not been done. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The colours are not natural. Surprised you cannot identify the frog though. Charles (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Oversaturated? I will support if doubts about the colors are addressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info I never change the picture to put on commons, but is possible reduce the saturation, you think it's better? Adobe Lr PrintScreen Negative Reduced saturation --Webysther (talk)

With the caveat that I'm not looking at equally big pictures at the links, it does seem to me to look better with less saturation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Reduced -20 on saturation --Webysther (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I still wish you knew the species, but so be it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Perpetua and Felicitas church in Nimes 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2019 at 22:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quite nice, but not that big for an FP church interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan; the bar here for church interiors has been set pretty high, and this just doesn't make it technically, with some unsharp areas and blown highlights in the windows. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There may be better ones but there are nearly always better ones of a likely object. Windows don't have always to look like paintings. Pro from me. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and quality. We can't expect every church interior to be a stitched HDR. --Code (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not super high-resolution but the details are all sharp and clear. Cmao20 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Dubble vote. Tournasol7 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Apple-tree blossoms 2017 G3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2019 at 09:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I struggle to understand the choice of background here. Charles (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it's just because it's late winter in the Northern Hemisphere, but this strikes me very right right now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Jpcomic (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

~~Support~~ --Capitain Beefheart (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, but you cannot vote because you have less than 50 edits (see rules). -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gate and farm tracks close to Gartur Stitich Farm, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2019 at 11:14:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by me. I know that the light is dull but on Scottish muddy farm tracks it's kind of working for me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a QI, but for me there's just too much going in the composition for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is too tight on the top and I don't find the subject captivating enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like this composition and see what you probably saw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Milseburg (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like everything about this picture. Including the clouds!--Famberhorst (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ghaah! I feel wet and cold just looking at it. :-) Your trip to the British isles was well worth the money. --Cart (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk)
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what you were trying to do, but I still lack wow here, sorry, --Poc o² 20:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and quality. Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Louise Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun - Marie-Antoinette de Lorraine-Habsbourg, reine de France et ses enfants - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2019 at 12:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Louise Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun / Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info In a previous nomination, it was mentioned that the painting has some defects. You can see a 20.5 Mpx thumbnail here.
Support -- Yann (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the painting has defects, that should not concern us. We should only worry about the digitization. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why shouldn't it concern us? Doesn't a huge slice lessen whatever wow this kind of painting had in the first place? I don't think I agree with you but would like to hear you out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dünenweg bei Norddorf auf Amrum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2019 at 15:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info On the way through the dunes to the beach on the island Amrum - All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your composition is split with "leading lines" leading off in two directions, neither of which have much content to entertain the viewer. I've suggested a crop as an example. In this the left path leads up to the couple who are looking into your composition. This is stronger, imo, but we still have the problem that the people are very small and the detail on the beach is hard to make out. If you had stormier sea it might be more interesting. -- Colin (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin; the left path might indeed work on its own. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think I understand what you were going for compositionally, but not sure it's quite paid off. Nice quality though. Cmao20 (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice idea, but doesn't do enough for me. I marked my own suggested crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAV I, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 04:51:37 (UTC)

Info I'm cleaning up several images made by the photographers of Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP, we already have some similar featured photos from the same GLAM project as:
File:Avestruz alta.jpg
File:Skull of crocodile (Crocodylidae).jpg
File:Suíno alta.jpg
...

I selected the ones that do not have major faults, and as there are around 60 very good images, with a very high educational value, I decided to spare the set in more than one to be analysed, edited by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton - uploaded by Joalpe and Sturm - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- Thank you for your time.-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least not this one. Blown highlights, chromatic aberrations, the quality is not at FP level. But there are too many ones to inspect all of them in detail. Question Is it a set ? I don't imagine Llez (or any other good photographer) nominating all their stock of potential photos in a single nomination like that. That's too much work for the reviewer(s) in my opinion. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a set, as per Basile above. These should be nominated individually. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, I don't see that any of the 4 options for a set (described here) are met in this case. --Poc o² 12:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see this as a set per Commons FPC definitions, it's more of a collection. --Cart (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to decide...

Here the problem was that the images are "similar", the first answer was: "feel free to make a group nomination next time for similar photos", so I did.

@Basile Morin, George Chernilevsky, and W.carter: because of this discussion I decided to group all of they together, and yes, is an effort to see all, I can choose a smaller amount to be analysed, but first you need to choose, it's to nominate one by one, or is to nominate in a set?

This image: File:Superfície não orientável - Bordo trifólio.jpg is not featured because it's too similar to this File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg, that do not have any characteristics in common

Thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 16:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not display any other files on the nomination since the FPC Bot will read them as "Alternatives" and this will mess up the nom, we can all open the files to have a look at them. I have fixed the coding for you. --Cart (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What goes into a set is probably a bit subjective. It varies and depends on your view of the items. I can understand that the mathematical forms look totally different to a mathematician, while they look very similar to me. These skeletons of animals of different species form a very large and diverse group. In the past I've only seen such photos nominated separately. Groups of skeletons of animals related to each other might be an alternative. (Birds, bovines, reptiles, carnivores, etc) In a set, I want to be able to see a connection between the photos as well as some things that can be valuable to compare. --Cart (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Aside from faults with certain specific images, this does not constitute a set under my understanding of the criteria. A set can either show different aspects of the same subject or it can show different subjects; in the latter case, it must be an exhaustive list of all instances of a category, not a sampling. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin Meistersaal KoethenerStr asv2018-06 img1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 16:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info Interior of former Hansa Studio a.k.a. Meistersaal in Berlin-Kreuzberg ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary room, nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thought-terminating cliché? --A.Savin 10:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Basile, the scene isn't very impressive to me. I also find it a bit noisy.--Peulle (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, per Peulle; also it gets distorted near the corners, and frankly it seems like this image is another that saw a lot of potential and tried to capture it in one image where two or three smaller ones might have done. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the left part the room looks higher than in the right part, the floor is leaning upwards and the ceiling is leaning down. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With that ceiling, I could not call the room ordinary, but the photo is taking in too much. Another angle (perhaps along the chair lines with the windows in the back and the lamps hanging in front of them, excluding the tech equipment at the sides) might have been better. Please try again if you have the opportunity. It's a good documentation though. --Cart (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image quality is very good except for slight distortions in the corners, but I'm not convinced the room is interesting enough to merit an FP. Some subjects probably aren't FP material, however well-captured. Cmao20 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, St.-Paulus-Dom, Nordturm -- 2019 -- 3883-5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 18:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't decided whether to oppose a feature or not. This is certainly well-photographed, and I understand the composition, but to me only the background is interesting enough, so I'd probably prefer a smaller picture that shows pretty much only the chapel with the statue in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the handrails. They're too short to serve as leading lines, so at this point they're just a distraction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reason as Ikan. Good quality, but I don’t see much visual interest past the statue - a narrower focus would be better. Cmao20 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think it is time for a decision. Thank you for your comments and reviews. --XRay ^talk 09:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musée Galliera, Paris 5 February 2019.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 10:50:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Alexandre Prévot from Nancy, France - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition is good but not great, IMO. I don't really like the position of the tree that's so close to the lower left corner, it's partly cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A good QI but not sure it clears the FP bar for me either in resolution or composition. If it were twice this size I might support, but it's not a very technically difficult shot and a higher resolution should be achievable. Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm OK with it despite the low resolution but I think it could be improved by cropping in from the left. Seems to have been very scrupulously perspective-corrected. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Paris 16 (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vue de la nouvelle salle de l'Opéra prise de la rue de Provence - NYPL Digital Collections.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 06:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Paris 16, could you please explain briefly why you raised the black levels in your restoration? It makes the whole thing look very washed out, worse than the original. – Lucas 08:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I think by the time, the picture has become more yellow. And my restoration help it is close to the real original.--Paris 16 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with Lucas. I thought this color was original and hadn't looked at the original. My mistake. I'm sorry, but I will annul my support vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Paris 16, Ikan Kekek: I think I found the culprit: the image nominated has a PhaseOne color profile and it looks very washed out in my browser. When I import it into Photoshop and convert back to RGB, it looks much better and the mood of the scene fits the levels. Maybe upload a new version in RGB to ensure everyone sees the levels (and maybe colors too) right? – Lucas 14:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support but could you please add the {{Retouched}} template. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that "restoration" bleached out all the colors. Or is that a color profile issue, as the preview images the Mediawiki software produces for the original tif have a similar problem? --El Grafo (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment El Grafo, it's very likely a color profile issue, see my comment above. – Lucas 15:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Restoration" --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours look good to me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Let's see what we can do about the colors. I see the complaint about the previous version, but I think there's a profile issue. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Paris 16 (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woman walking on old Quebec city downtown, Canada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2019 at 22:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally don't think black/white is working for this image. It detracts from the possible depth and wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The form works for more, and I don't care whether it's black & white or color, but I think black & white accentuates the snow. DoF is maybe a bit short for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like what's going on in the foreground, and I do think b&w was a good choice for this. However, the background is very busy – it really distracts me from the main subject without providing anything interesting to look at. On the technical side, high-contrast edges show some clear signs of (over-) sharpening (e.g. trash cans vs. snow on the right). --El Grafo (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This does not work for me for the reasons already stated above. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The artistic choice to use B&W has really paid off. Cmao20 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. Sorry, this doesn't capture me as much as the similar File:Ana rosa metro station, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg did. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Excellent comments and reviews, thanks guys Cart, Uoaei1 and the supporters too. Maybe i will need rethink my composition before of stay on negative temperatures where is difficult create art --Wilfredor (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor, even we who have lived all our life in the cold north have trouble being creative during the cold months. So it will take some time before you, who comes from a warm place, will find the right things to photograph. Normally during winter, I only take my camera outside 2-3 time per month. Snow is so difficult to photograph in a creative way (ice is easier). The trick is to be very active with the camera the rest of the year, especially in spring and autumn, and spend winter developing and fixing your photos. Be well, and I hope you become more comfortable in your new life. --Cart (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hohe Loog IMG 4685.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 18:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by User:Fischer.H - uploaded by User:Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, regretfully. Beautiful scene, nice light. But I wonder how it could pass QI with this amount of haloes along most of the edges (tree, bird feeder ...). This is seriously over-sharpened. --El Grafo (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not as bothered by these very narrow halos as El Grafo, but the photo isn't huge and you can see them at full size. Fix them and I will support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very visible halos (overprocessed image). Agree with El Grafo -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if it weren't overprocessed I'd oppose on the composition. It's oddly cropped, and the rows of snow-covered tables don't work so well for me with the irregularity of the trees against the hazy sky. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.05.-01-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Grosse Pechlibelle-junges Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 19:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged Damselflies)
Info Young male of a Blue-tailed damselfly. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the orange is a bit offputting and, again, I find the crop too tight. Charles (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Charles has some reasonable objections, and the orange part looks like a fuzzy human finger, but the photo of the damselfly is quite exceptional! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info No human finger. This is some plant stuff. --Hockei (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Jpcomic (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit tight of a crop on the bottom right, but still fine to me --Poc o² 12:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info The Bot seems to have some trouble with this, I'm commenting out the invalid stiked vote to see if that might help. --Cart (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back since the reason was that the Bot is not working. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged Damselflies)

File:Castellum Divisorium in Nimes 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 23:44:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bottom right corner? Charles (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can cropped it, if it bothers here. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom right corner Cropped. Tournasol7 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Good VI/QI, but I don't find this a great composition and would prefer one focused more narrowly on the circular area. I'll try to suggest an approximate crop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I don't guarantee I'll support if you make a crop like this, but I think it would produce a more compelling composition. I also think just doing something like my suggested right crop and leaving the left side as it is would produce good results, and that's closer to what Charles is requesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ikan Kekek, but I would like to save a view general of Castellum Divisorum. In addition after your suggest crop, the file will be very small... Tournasol7 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The image is very useful and illustrative, but it seems not quite sharp at full resolution, especially on the left-hand side where it looks like there's perhaps slight motion blur. The resolution of the whole image is not that high, so I'm not sure this really meets FP standard. Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sninský kameň (v zime) 046.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 16:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --A.Savin 17:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Webysther 20190306142802 - Edifício Altino Arantes.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Webysther (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support A FP-composition but unfortunately it needs a serious perspective correction. The right part is leaning to the right and the left part is leaning tot the left. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC). Perspective fixed, so you got my support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is perspective correction normally required for drone pics? I'm certainly impressed and hope Webysther resolves this issue, if people agree that it should be resolved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to find a compromise during taking pictures. If the camera is straight, interesting details may become invisible. If it's too much inclined, perspective correction may spoil the whole picture. A bit inclined downwards and then perspective correction is mostly recommendable --A.Savin 15:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending possible correction of perspective. Support now Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have a look at User:A.Savin's drone/aerial photos (In the above FP page/section for Russia). I think he either corrects them or ensures the camera is level. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an excellent picture for me --Fischer.H (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I would be much more enthusiastic about this one if the perspective were corrected, but I think the visual interest of the view tips it over into FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for fixing the perspective. A strong candidate by my reckoning now. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Fixed perspective -- Webysther (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Webysther, you should ping everyone who's voted (support, neutral or oppose) or commented in this thread (except me). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Ikan, you are right! --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin, Fischer.H, Daniel Case, and Colin: thanks for the tip! :) -- Webysther (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, I do not see reason for nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It shouts for a panoramic view. Furthermore it needs a perspective correction, both sides are leaning out --Poc o² 12:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support after correcting perspective --KaiBorgeest (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Edgar A. Poe - NARA - 528345 (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2019 at 17:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by unknown photographer / Mathew Brady, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please check the source before complaining about the restoration. ;o) -- Yann (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the restoration is very good, and so is the portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality photo of an interesting and enigmatic character. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abzeronow (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous work, though you know this is a drawing, right? Brady did that sometimes with older photos that were too damaged. He'd have a high-quality drawing made off of them, then photograph that. I don't know why. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Green Sea Turtle, by Jeremy Bishop 2016-09-14.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 19:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Jeremy Bishop, uploaded by Fæ, retouched by W.carter, nominated Yann (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral We are a bit more lenient on underwater photography, but still I think the quality is not quite up to par, with noise visible at large thumbnail size. Very nice composition though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ noise and shallow DOF (f/2.8) Seven Pandas (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Pandas, f/2.8 is only shallow DoF on a full-frame sensor. This GoPro camera has a sensor nearly 6 times smaller than that. According to mmcalc this 3mm lens at f/2.8 on a 1/2.3" sensor is equivalent to a 17mm ultra-wide lens at f/16 on a full-frame. Accordingly the camera is actually "focus free" -- it is set so nearly everything from about a foot to infinity is acceptably in focus. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support clearly better. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really like it, I'll see if I can do something with it later tonight when I get home, if that's ok. --Cart (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done some gentle fixing. I did it in two steps (noise & sharpness then light), so feel free to revert what you don't like. I think I'll leave it up to others to judge my handiwork. Also 'ping' King of Hearts and Seven Pandas about the change. --Cart (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, with regret. I like the composition very much and would vote for this if a suitable scope could be found at VI, but I’m not convinced the quality is quite there, even though this is a challenging shot. Cmao20 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Félix, Torralba de Ribota, Zaragoza, España, 2018-04-04, DD 57-59 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2019 at 20:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Ceiling in the church of St Felix, Torralba de Ribota, province of Zaragoza, Spain. The church, of mudéjar and late gothic style was built between 1367 and 1420. The church is a national heritage monument in Spain (known as Bien de Interés Cultural) since 2006. All by me, Poc o² 20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really pretty. If you know the name of the painter who did the frescoes, mention that name in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights, asymmetry, cluttered composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, and the sharpness at full-res is impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.04.-01-Bonsweiher-Moerlenbach--Wald-Erdbeere.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 21:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technical shortcomings undermine an otherwise good photo. I am a little less forgiving of quality issues on a shot like this than on some of your recent macro photography of butterflies and insects since a shot of a stationary subject is considerably easier to execute. Cmao20 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I withdraw my nomination.--Hockei (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.21.-01-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Tagpfauenauge.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 21:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have more space at right? Yann (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version. I gave a bit more on both sides. --Hockei (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportCmao20 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not the most colorful butterfly, but a great shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Podzemnik (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 02:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

Image:AB Schoental Kuehruhgraben.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2019 at 22:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by KaiBorgeest - uploaded by KaiBorgeest - nominated by KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely light, colors and composition, similar to a good painted landscape. I predict, though, that it will have trouble with people who think compositions like this one are too "busy". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The painting-like character of this shot makes it special. It's almost as if pictorialism made a comeback. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed it seems busy at thumb, but when you look at it in full size it opens up a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too busy. Charles (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems oddly light, like there isn't really much dark or black. Also wonder if the colour temp is a little blue. Overall it is ok, but I'm not getting much wow compared to some forests we've had with shafts of light or a clear composition. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin.--Fischer.H (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus is at the quite uninteresting foreground, light and colors are unnatural. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1 --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light and colors, unsharp, busy composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A good, well-composed photo but it doesn't really wow me, plus the background is not sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~--Jpcomic (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines. Also you need to explain your vote when opposing -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose The foreground plant doesn't make for an attractive composition. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island (71943).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2019 at 06:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United States
Info created/uploaded/nominated by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks, Ikan Kekek for the suggestion at QIC. Also spent some time labeling the image. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for the excellent labeling. Fine photo, and it's nice that you got a helicopter in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there a category for "Lower Manhattan Skyline" or "Downtown Manhattan Skyline"? If so, I'd suggest adding it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done moved to Category:Manhattan skylines from Governors Island. --El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~The size is not huge and the crop at the right a bit tight, but they are minor issues~~. Nice helicopter and image notes -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC) update after new upload -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice image, but not outstanding compared to other images of the same subject. The composition/crop feels a bit crammed at the sides, the level of detail is not that great and the position of the sun makes for a rather flat image. In my opinion, all of this is handled better in File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island September 2016 panorama 2.jpg. The chopper is about the only thing that sets it apart from similar views and I'm afraid that's not quite enough for me. All that being said, the image notes are very useful, so I think this would make an excellent VI. --El Grafo (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island September 2016 panorama 2.jpg works much better for me. Charles (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Charles. The composition and light is better in the other photo, which is also higher resolution. The helicopter isn't positioned and directed optimally to enhance the photo. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very instructive The image quality is very good and the informative label work sets it apart positively from other good images of this motif. --Milseburg (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Milseburg --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Per others, right crop is too tight --Poc o² 20:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new crop is better, moving now to NeutralPoc o² 09:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Colin and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture with the helicopter. Cmao20 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and others --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is much better, changed to

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Time went by between editing and uploading and I guess I didn't realize some space got lost while fixing perspectives (I think that's what happened anyway). So there's a new version which addresses the right crop. Obviously this doesn't address other issues brought up, so I doubt this will change much, but I would be remiss if I didn't upload and ping commenters anyway. :) @Uoaei1, Cmao20, Daniel Case, Poco a poco, and Palauenc05: — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, does {{Ping}} have a limit of 5 people on Commons? Did not know that. the others: Milseburg, Colin, Charlesjsharp El Grafo, Basile Morin, Cayambe, Ikan Kekek — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but I still prefer the other one. Charles (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but I also still prefer the other one. --El Grafo (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. The other photo is bigger, but both compositions are good and I think it's not overkill to have a couple of FPs of the Downtown Manhattan skyline. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same reasoning as Ikan. I would support the other image too for its superior resolution, but the helicopter makes this one a little different. Thanks for providing the improved crop. Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The helicopter is nice, but isn't special enough to make me support a 10.6 MP cityscape with blue sky and no clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Info Promoted by mistake due to double vote. Corrected. --Cart (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haft-sin, Nowruz, Still-life-3205068.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2019 at 21:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Katzenfee50, uploaded by 4nn1l2/Yann, nominated by Yann (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support good Ezarateesteban 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The background looks like my eyes are crossed and I'm seeing double. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea and it is arranged quite nicely, but: Formally, 1) the description really could use a bit more information – at least the single elements of the haft sin should be listed, as is seems that they can vary 2) The book cover is a copyright violation – {{De minimis}} may apply but the file is not marked as such. Photographically speaking, it's not really outstanding imho: busy background; weird light that is neither neutral nor does it add anything in terms of atmosphere; table is awkwardly cut. --El Grafo (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: I added {{De minimis}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset over the hills of Amber Cove, 30 December 2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 09:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Joe deSousa (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a great view with lots of details, but unfortunately it is so heavily over-processed that the highlights in the darker areas look like impressionistic brush strokes even if it is viewed at downsized like 50%. Being a Flickr photo I don't think we will be able to make the author fix this from raw. Pity. --Cart (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also count at least 4 dust spots. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. A shame because it makes a beautiful desktop wallpaper. Cmao20 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of its technical shortcomings noted in the oppose !votes

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Restaurant on Ochrid lake Pogradec Albania 2018.2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 17:26:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Karelj (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but focus to main part of the photo is not well done --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion, poor light and not very high resolution.--Peulle (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is good, but vignetting and other technical flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but the overexposed sky alone is a dealbreaker. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of its technical shortcomings noted in the oppose !votes

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.

– Lucas 13:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:South 3rd Ring Rd west of Yangqiao (20180719154203).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2019 at 00:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by N509FZ - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I didn't expect to find this special, based on the thumbnail, but I like the really long sight line and the strange light and colors that combine storm clouds and smog. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the mood and the view but for me the quality is unfortunately not high enough. It is quite visible that it was taken with a cell phone. -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither composition nor image quality are outstanding --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually quite like the composition, but the image quality is not really good enough to be called an FP.--Peulle (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with regret. Composition is lovely, but I'm not sure the iPhone is really capable of taking pictures of FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. --Cart (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't stand out for me. --BoothSift 02:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amiral bruix.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 16:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media
Info created by Paulin Guérin - uploaded by S. DÉNIEL - nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the skin have this slight greenish cast in other images of the painting? Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I changed color and light. I think it's better than the original from château de Versailles. You can make your opinion by looking here: http://collections.chateauversailles.fr/#044d57e1-5350-486d-ba66-0403378eff81— Preceding unsigned comment added by S. DÉNIEL (talk • contribs)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 23:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hmla, vrcholky vysokotatranských štítov vyčnievajúce z rannej hmly 002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 19:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe this could be a VI, if a suitable scope is found, but this isn't a composition I like. The mist impedes eye movement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure I really get the compositional idea here. Nice resolution but I think we have better misty pictures. Cmao20 (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Feels like a small piece of a more interesting panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, St.-Paulus-Dom, nördliches Seitenschiff -- 2019 -- 3934-8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 18:34:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this one is really good. Cmao20 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Podzemnik (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 23:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ida Paul & Kalle Lindroth - Ilosaarirock 2018 - 08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 21:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Teevee - uploaded by User:Teevee - nominated by Teevee -- Teevee (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Teevee (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait, good composition. --Yann (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure about the title though since Kalle Lindroth is not in the picture. --Cart (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but misleading filename should be changed --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Crop on both sides is too tight. Also the guitar below shouldn't be cut. --Hockei (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one with the whole guitar and a bit more air on the right. I feel the focus a bit too far in the back in this one. --Teevee (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Smial (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some small faults but given how hard it is to get this kind of shot right and how much does go right with it, I'm letting them go. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Langkofel group from Sellajoch Col Rodella Fassa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 22:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A vey nice and sharp composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hut gives a nice touch. Yann (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Please fix 2 dust spots a bit below the upper right corner, but I have to support this for your sharp portrayal of such a massive structure, and yes on the hut, which shows just how huge the peaks are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed DSs and vertical lines - Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The faint clouds look a little posterized, but I don't care. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kinvara - Dunguaire Castle - 20180706210924.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2019 at 03:25:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Ruhrfisch - uploaded by Ruhrfisch - nominated by Ruhrfisch -- Ruhrfisch (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info This photograph was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 and was selected as "Highly Commended" (see here for the top ten Ireland photos). Ruhrfisch (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ruhrfisch (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hi Ruhrfisch and congratulations on your success at WLM. I'm afraid it isn't up to the standard expected at Commons FP for castles and similar views. I appreciate a 16th century tower house might not have perfectly vertical walls, and the image has no true horizon, but it does look like it is tilted anti-clockwise. The time of day is unfortunate as it means most of the near side of the castle is in shade. This is not only less attractive than if lit, but reduces the details we can see. The composition includes some leaves from a near bush, along the bottom and right, which could do with being cropped off. The whole image is a bit soft and these bush leaves are quite sharp, which makes me think your camera has focused on the bush rather than the castle. It would have been ideal if the Irish flag was flying, which it is in some other photos of this castle, and is always a nice touch. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for contributing this image to the project, but I'm afraid I agree with Colin. I don't actually mind the composition, but I do think you may have missed the focus on the castle itself. Cmao20 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks to both of you for being kind. I am fine with closing this nomination early and do not want to waste any more of the community's time with it. Ruhrfisch (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Hi Ruhrfisch, the correct way for you to do this would have been to place {{withdrawn}} and signed on the nomination. After that, one of us would have closed and archived the nomination. Since you probably didn't know this, I will fix this for you. Just keep it in mind until the next time. :-) --Cart (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles-Antoine Cambon - La Esmeralda, Act 3, Scene 2 set.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 06:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Charles-Antoine Cambon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality digitisation. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Couple of teenagers riding a jestski splashing on the Mekong in Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 10:38:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me, but may be a little bit better with at least a part of the face of the girl. I'm sure that this little improvement would be more than difficult. But it's good as it is. --XRay ^talk 16:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another shot with more face of the girl, but I think the splash in this one is more impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, this compo is better. The other one also has a disturbing log in the background. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support For once a picture of Basile's from the rivers of Laos that doesn't involve bamboo bridges or tropical landscapes . Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong thanks, Daniel, and thanks also for your support of my bamboo bridge with tropical landscape too -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good shot. And I love the bamboo bridges. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Building at 3795 Carey Rd, Saanich, British Columbia, Canada 13.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 20:42:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
Info All by me. It's an office building at 3795 Carey Rd, Saanich, British Columbia, Canada -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really dislike this type of architecture, but you've captured it very well. Cmao20 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Cmao20 --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weirdly enough, I think I'm starting to enjoy brutalism … I like how the various installations on the roof make it look like the bridge section of an ocean liner. --El Grafo (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I know the light trails are unavoidable with a 30-second exposure at that time of night, but that doesn't make them less distracting to me. They focus way too much of my attention. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice light, but this modern building is really ordinary. Beside, I find the colors oversaturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas 08:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't make any saturation adjustments, it's just the end of the blue hour. I had a version without the light trails, too, but I found this one more entertaining. The building is by a busy highway and I thought including the light trails would be a good representation of it. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps vibrance is too strong, as the yellows are very intense. Concerning the light trails, I agree they're distracting because the street is partly cut. They look intrusive, since they strike out both the sign and the building, making the composition really busy at the bottom -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin; This image is in good quality, but the building is very ordinary. Tournasol7 (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, you did a good job but I don't see this subject featureable --Poc o² 12:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others, after much pondering. Yann (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chapel Interior 4, Royal Holloway, University of London - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 20:22:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The interior of the chapel at Royal Holloway, University of London, completed in 1886. I think this is a beautiful interior and deserves an FP. The composition of this shot is quite interesting, and it also has less distortion at the edges than the conventional down-the-middle shot. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, not the most easiest photo to make --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - So many wonderful details! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Jpcomic (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The spots on the wall lit by the sun look pretty awkward, like a blur --Poc o² 12:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco --Milseburg (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco pointing it out. --BoothSift 02:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Planken Wambuis locatie omgeving Mossel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 17:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #Fog.
Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice fog picture. --Hockei (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully atmospheric and a clear FP. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Love the fog and the location, but the image is not quite there for me. It lacks a clear subject or compositional idea for me: Neither the raspberry (?) scrub on the left nor the tree/hedge on the right are particularly interesting, but they dominate the scene, distracting from the nice-looking tree in the background. Or, if you say they are supposed to be the subject, then that nice-looking tree in the background distracts from that. The white balance is too warm for my taste, makes it look more like a sand storm rather than a foggy day. Or maybe not warm enough, if this was a golden hour shot (but it doesn't look like one to me) --El Grafo (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with El Grafo. The two shrubs, left and right, are not very nice and distract from the two central trees. I don't mind the WB, but the composition doesn't convince me. As an artistic photo, with mainly fog and no distinct subject, we need a better disposition of the elements in this space. Perhaps too much random here, or only shapes almost hidden. Immediately my eyes go to the right and feel not rewarded -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others: Nice mood, but the composition doesn't really add up fully for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Ikan, it doesn't come through completely. --Cart (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still a nice idea. I'd have probably supported if the 3 trees would have looked similar (kind of pattern) Poc o² 12:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very typical Dutch weather. :) MartinD (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, LVM-Versicherung, Skulptur "Körper und Seele" -- 2019 -- 3997.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2019 at 09:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 09:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 09:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have
- Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Zwei Pferde- -- 2016 -- 5969-75.jpg
- Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2016 -- 5920-6.jpg

Can you explain what makes this photo special please. -- Colin (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's another view and another composition. I think the view is not comparable with the other. I like it with the yellow lines at the bottom, the yellow column and the the yellow sculpture. --XRay ^talk 10:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This angle doesn't really work for me. I like the image where the sculpture is the main subject, but here the subject is not really clear.--Peulle (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. -- Karelj (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeDoesn't stand out enough for me--BoothSift 03:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination May be the photograph is too busy. And all the reviews ... IMO it's better to withdraw the photograph. Thank you for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 05:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 09:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carloz Schwabe - Vincent d'Indy's Fervaal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2019 at 12:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Carloz Schwabe -restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a really appealing scene that make me wonder what kind of magical/mythological plot that opera has. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the finale. Some really good music in it, actually. I might have to hint it towards my friends in Fife Opera. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fascinating piece of artwork. Cmao20 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mont de Sëuc Seiser Alm Montes de Gherdëina.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2019 at 20:57:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo, good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support though maybe contrast can be boosted slightly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sadly there are many horizontal posterization artefacts in the sky, one noticeable one right above the highest peak. – Lucas 08:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can see that only if I really pixel-peep at full size. Is that what you're doing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see some of them in the preview and other zoom levels as irregular shapes that could be clouds, but really are the artefacts. Again, the ones placed right above the highest peak are the best example. – Lucas 08:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lucasbosch: I can't see them even at 200% size. This is a screenshot of a high contrast detail 100% size nad I don't see any wrong lines beside the clouds. Could you please put a note --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Moroder: I put notes on your high contrast image. The posterization is a sudden change in brightness and has an irregular shape. – Lucas 14:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would call those cirrostratus clouds (Schleierwolken). I don't see any posterisation on my Eizo monitor --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that there was the "edge" of a cloud at the parting line originally, but as I see it something in the capture and/or post-processing (not necessarily your fault) made a harsh split of tones out of it there, with some speckles inbetween. I don't want to belabor this any more, I see artifacts that I'm convinced are not natural, but if I am alone in this it's okay. I hope it's not caused by my monitor ... – Lucas 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~--Jpcomic (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs theme music ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An Alpine Symphony - Richard Strauss --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit warm with regard to color temperature for my taste, but still a fantastic shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, it's an alp, so I'm not a fan. But a very, very good photo of an alp. My own photos of this view and the Dolomites are unfortunately lost. --Cart (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's tempting to print it off and put on my wall. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Amazing quality like a beautiful painting, however, posterization on the sky. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, there is some mild posterization going on in the sky (Lucas, your monitor is OK). It is difficult to see because there is still some structure in the posterized areas: It takes place in the clouds, but it is very clearly an artifact of digital processing. I'd prefer to see this fixed, but it is a minor issue. --El Grafo (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Louis Brandeis statue by Robert Berks.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2019 at 23:35:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Robert Berks - uploaded by Kzirkel - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COM:FOP US No FoP for sculptures --A.Savin 23:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @A.Savin: “In addition, any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978).” 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think the image seems a little overprocessed and lacking in fine detail at full resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This just doesn't wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A nice idea, and I don't really see signs of overprocessing, and not bad for a phone picture, but there's just too much going on in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maevia inclemens 8911.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2019 at 08:13:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info created by David Hill - uploaded by Kaldari - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose black line & dots --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Black line is scale. Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even before considering the aesthetics of the picture, technically there are important stitching errors at the bottom left corner -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination didn't notice the stitching errors. Tomer T (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Animated phenakistiscope disc - Running rats Fantascope by Thomas Mann Baynes 1833.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 03:55:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated#Gifs
Info created by Thomas Mann Baynes - uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Very unpleasant, and not IMO for an important reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Please could you explain which "reason" you're talking about ? Source. For me this is an awesome testimony of an amazing invention -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the effect of all the rats running at me unpleasant, but now that I realize this is meant to replicate a historic invention, I've crossed out my oppose vote. I'd support this for VI, but I still don't think a moving GIF actually has the same effect as the Phenakistiscope, because it's so common to see moving GIFs online. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a modern technique applied to a 186 year-old document. Personally, I like the kaleidoscopic effect of this creation. But not animated, it would be very static for what it's supposed to show. Yes of course today moving GIFs are common online, but the phenakistiscope is regarded as one of the first forms of moving media entertainment that paved the way for the future motion picture and film industry. Today many trendy websites bring these old precursor drawings to the light. This piece is certainly one of the best quality and highest resolution we can find on the web in 2019 -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But in the original technique, didn't you just look at "one" of running rats (or procession of rats) through a slit? Like this image shows. Just seeing one running rat would be less dizzying. Seeing this multi-rat version is only possible with gif. Or? --Cart (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This works like an optical illusion. The retinal persistence is the secret behind these animations. The GIF linked above is also an approximation. Through the hole, in reality we would see 10% images, by interruption at regular intervals, and 90% black foreground (that would be much more dizzying IMO). The advantage here is to see both the whole wheel and the animation. Hypnotizing for many viewers . Today young and creative designers like Ana Taberko use this old invention for modern designs (it sounds like we can make new dishes with old good recipes). Similar FP in German and Persian Wikipedia -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support More animations! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated#Gifs

File:Participantemarcha8M2019CABA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 01:03:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Participant on action strike of womens 8M 2019 in Buenos Aires

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 01:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 01:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The composition looks off with an important object, the ring, cut off awkardly along with her second arm. In general the setting doesn't become clear: why has she the ring? Does the crowd behind her have something to do with it? Does she smile for the crowd or some individual? As it is no story is told and it makes it look like a random snapshot. – Lucas 08:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: it was a protest so there was a lot of people and a very difficult place to take photos, the ring is a tool to protest Ezarateesteban 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please give a proper name to this file. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ezarateesteban 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The background is kind of noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I applied a bit denoising but I think that is acceptable for this kind of photos, thanks and regards!! Ezarateesteban 13:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support but I would like more space at the bottom. Yann (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the entire photo without cropping, a lot of people around me, difficult to take phots, thanks Yann!!

Comment I think a picture like this maybe needs a better caption to clarify what's going on. What was the protest about, and how is the ring being used as a tool for the protest? If I understood this, I'd be happy to support because the image quality is superb, but I don't really understand what I'm seeing at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cmao20: , I was there as Commons's photographer, I don't have too much idea about this topic, but I investigate in Wikipedia and I improve a bit the description, Regards!! Ezarateesteban 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wonderful, and thanks for making the effort. Cmao20 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very, very good composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas, the cut-off ring doesn't work for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marinna (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good picture indeed, but the inevitable background distracts me enough for me not to consider it great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jalu (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The ring just messes the picture up for me. --BoothSift 02:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). (d.j.b.) 18.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 17:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Rain
Info This looks like a black and white photo, but it isn't. During heavy rain showers it seemed. that all colors disappeared and there was this grim atmosphere. Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). Stormy wind and heavy rain showers above Langweerderwielen.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 17:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite speak to me.--Peulle (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a dust spot right in the upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. spots removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite artistic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of details for this relatively small resolution. The trees are unsharp and like noisy. I also find this monochromatic picture a bit depressing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is very difficult to capture the concept of 'wind' and rain since even if you and your camera are almost blown away, things usually look rather still in the resulting photo and the rain becomes frozen in a misty layer obscuring details. Also hard to balance the shutter time; if you want visible rain streaks, you get very blurry plants. Here the patterns of bending reeds and gushing water help to make visible the movement of wind and rain. The mono color also helps to bring out the ominous mood in the photo. Category changed to "Rain" since there are no geographical sub-categories in "Natural phenomena". --Cart (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. -- Karelj (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also find it a bit depressing but that's what I like about the photo :) I also like how the plants grow directly from the waves. Otherwise per Cart. But Famberhorst, please add en English description. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment. W.carter has now added an English description. Thank you very much.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Podzemnik Poc o² 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I'd like to support it. But I cannot be a friend of the monochrome, sorry. --Hockei (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hockei, it is not a photographical monochrome like black and white or sepia. The color is natural, the landscape just happened to take on this look during the rain, as stated in the description. If you turn up the saturation to max, you will see the colors involved. --Cart (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hockei (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is what water in the Netherlands looks like, quite often. :) Artistic and/or depressing? Yes, both... MartinD (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cart. --BoothSift 03:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Walters Ranch Hop Kiln in 2019.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 02:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#United_States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The combinaison of an old house and modern stuff at right doesn't work. Good quality nevertheless. --Yann (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward crop of tree on left and starts having perspective issues near the right edge. Might work with my suggested crop. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is lopsided, too much on the left. If you want to include the stuff on the right, then there needs to be more space at the left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment Thanks for the feedback. Here's a new, less cluttered version with stronger perpective correction. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs some perspective correction, otherwise looking good --Poc o² 12:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, which direction? I'm somewhat lost. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, no tilt here, just missing vertical perspective correction to get the verticals vertical (see verticals on the right side leaning in) --Poc o² 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a new version. Please note that the building itself isn't straight. Nor are the poles on the right. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better composition than the other one. Cmao20 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --BoothSift 02:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Walters Ranch Hop Kiln in 2019, 4×5.jpg

File:2017.06.03.-14-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Spitzenfleck-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 12:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one a lot. Cmao20 (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this. --BoothSift 02:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vue panoramique du château et de l'arsenal en Penfeld 3Fi079-242.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 10:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by L.L. - uploaded by S. DÉNIEL - nominated by S. DÉNIEL -- (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question "Photographie mise en couleur" does this mean that the original photograph was in color or was the color added to a black and white photo? Désolé de demander cela en anglais, mais je ne sais pas exactement comment le mettre en français. S'il vous plaît répondez en français si c'est mieux. --Cart (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merci Cart, c'est vrais que ça manque de clarté : Photographie noir & blanc, mise en couleur puis imprimée en carte postale sur support papier - Black & white photography, coloring and printed in postcard on paper. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Les dimensions sont données comme 150 x 420cm, mais est-ce que c'est possible? Un carte postale de 420 cm? En realité, qu'est-ce que ce sont les dimensions du carte postale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bonjour Ikan, ce sont les dimensions données par les archives de Brest. C’est une source sérieuse et fiable. Cette carte fait partie d’un ensemble coté de trois cartes 3Fi079-240 à 243 du même éditeur. Un autre éditeur ARTAUD G a lui aussi sorti des cartes du même type et vous les trouverez à la cote 3Fi007-194 et 3Fi007-195. Voici un article qui confirme la source avec des cartes postales similaires : http://pearoid.unblog.fr/2017/12/14/chromo-photo-panoramique-levy-et-neurdein-reunis-compagnie-des-arts-photomecaniques-cap/ . Ces cartes étaient peut-être vendues dans un coffret ou avec une sorte de reliure. Ce sont des « souvenirs de voyage » plus destinés à être encadrés plutôt qu’expédiées https://www.ebay.fr/itm/PHOTO-ANCIENNE-COLORISEE-PANORAMIQUE-CHROMOGRAPHIE-BREST-LA-RADE-ET-LE-GOULET-/332962486728. Je viens de trouver un post qui dit que l’auteur LL pouraient désigner louis levy ou lucien-levy. https://www.cparama.com/forum/les-cartes-de-ll-louis-levy-ou-lucien-levy-t8416.html. Je pense que ces cartes sont rares. On trouve plus facilement des cartes de 28/30cm comme celle-ci : https://collection-jfm.fr/p/cpa-panoramique-france-29-brest-panorama-de-la-rade-le-goulet-210587. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup pour cette réponse detaillée. Je n'aurais pas pensé qu'un carte si grand serait possible. C'est tres interessant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quite an interesting postcard Cmao20 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good scan of an unusual old item/memorabilia/postcard. Info added to description on file page. (À propos, même si {{LangSwitch}} est élégant, il peut cacher des informations qui ne sont disponibles que dans une des langues des autres lecteurs. Je l'ai changé en description multilingue.) --Cart (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart and Cmao20. This photo should also be nominated at VIC, regardless of whether it passes FPC or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support avec le supplément d'information. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work so well for me.--Peulle (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting historically to see such a colored card -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soutiens per les autres. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, maybe VI. --Milseburg (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wells Cathedral Nave Photograph.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 06:58:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Cmao20 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral sorry to change my vote but I think I judged this one too quickly. It's not a bad photo, but I do think it's too noisy compared to our best church interiors. Cmao20 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose noisy and unsharp Ezarateesteban 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ezarateesteban, and looks oversharpened. Impressive, but not at the high quality level of British church interiors we have already seen. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the others; the composition is excellent, but since the bar for church interiors is so high, this one really has some teechnical flaws that can't be overlooked.--Peulle (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galerie Perrotin Ceiling Detail.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 20:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by ComedyAmy - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like these kind of image very much. But IMO it is important, that the image is centered and the horizontal lines are horizontal. It's fixable. There are artifacts and problems mit sharpness too. May be this is not fixable. --XRay ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per XRay. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per XRay, he brings up a valid point. --BoothSift 20:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Michel church in Fontenoy (DSCF5104) Antoing, Belgium.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 18:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Belgium
Info by User:Trougnouf
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. The tree obstructs the church. Yann (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. A QI and possibly a VI, but not a great composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is OK for me. If the sky was bright and blue I have a feeling it would have got a lot more support. But a grey sky doesn’t bother me, and the composition looks good - it’s often tough to find a better angle to shoot churches from I think. Cmao20 (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. I really like the light in this picture, with the beginning of civil twilight even though the sky is cloudy there is a blue tint to it and it lights up the church beautifully imo. I think the tree is a feature, I like the way it stands next to this modest church and being the right time of the year it doesn't block the view (in contrast with the other version where I unexpectedly happened to bicycle to the same spot again five months later and the tree is too prominent). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vihorlat (v zime) 046.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 19:56:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular atmosphere! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)~[reply]
Support An excellent composition! --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but it seems titled (see horizon). Yann (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info It can be fixed to make it look better. But I don't know if that low cloud was actually in the plane. I had a problem with it on several photos of that day. --Milan Bališin (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the tilt is fixed. Yann (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Milan Bališin (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a tilt IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't know, it seems so straight to me? --Milan Bališin (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If the horizon is tilted, I'm sure you'll fix it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a lot of brightening, snow should be white. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why should it be white when it's reflecting what looks like late afternoon light near sundown? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info It was taken about an hour before sunset. The sun colored the snow into “yellow”. The sunset was around 15:30. The photo was taken at 14:37 (It was Golden hour). --Milan Bališin (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to Oppose the image in its current state then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More photos of the day in The Gallery. On several photos, the snow is yellow (when the sun sets). --Milan Bališin (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but a bit per Yann and a bit per King (It was my first impression too. Maybe it's slightly too warm.). --Hockei (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think that the lighting and above all the scenery had lots of FP potential, but I am not quite convinced about the composition here. I'd would probably focused more on a spot where the effect of the wind to the snow/ice is predominant --Poc o² 12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly colder WB. would probably be nicer.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did you sleep up there? --Podzemnik (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is overcategorized. --A.Savin 13:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which are they exactly? --Milan Bališin (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example "Vihorlat + Views from Vihorlat", "Frost + White frost", "Golden hour + Golden hour landscapes",... and many more --A.Savin 17:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I deleted something. --Milan Bališin (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that you are not thinking for yourself... --A.Savin 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Help me if there's something else wrong. Thanks. --Milan Bališin (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He's right. Just to give a few examples: How can you have categories for both Vihorlat and Vihorlat (národná prírodná rezervácia)? It's obvious that one is a parent of the other, isn't it? At the very least, it's redundant. Also, you have numerous snow categories and then "Snow scenery", an obvious parent category. And isn't "Winter landscapes" a parent for one of the other categories? I want you to clean this up before it's featured, and I may have to join A.Savin in opposing if you don't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I cleared it. I don't know if that's ok. --Milan Bališin (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but how is Kyjov (vrch vo Vihorlatských vrchoch) different from Vihorlat? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are two separate peaks. See notes in the photo. --Milan Bališin (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I think your categories are good now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nothing special. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice montane winter mood. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joshua Tree National Park Night Sky.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2019 at 02:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by Henrique Pinto - uploaded by Boothsift - nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 02:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator -- BoothSift 02:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even for a night pic, this is too noisy, IMO. I'm also wondering if the land and the sky are two different pics that were combined. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I noticed that also. I'll withdraw. --BoothSift 04:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--BoothSift 04:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:ILLENIUM.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019 at 15:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Mike Bedard - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excesive noise, distracting background, composition --Wilfredor (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I quite like the background, but the noise is way too much.--Peulle (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, background, composition, ... --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above - not a bad portrait but not FP level. Cmao20 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per coments above, none possibilty to be FP --Ezarateesteban 23:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Our Bangladesh.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 17:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created & uploaded by Muktarodps - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Nice picture, but too small for FP. Please read the guidelines. Yann (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 018-033 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 18:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Full panoramic (360 degrees) view of the unique landscape around Deadvlei, Namib-Naukluft Park, Namibia. All by me, Poc o² 18:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support You liked (and promoted) the last pano from the area, this one is IMHO even more impressive, much bigger and of higher quality. -- Poc o² 18:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous one had an excellent composition, sadly not all 360 degrees panoramas share that quality no matter how big they are. IMO a normal jpeg is often an inferior medium for this kind of panorama since the composition tends to look a bit random. See note. --Cart (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Interesting photo to see the difference of ground in front of / behind the dune. But the composition is completely unbalanced. Two areas cut in the center and the dunes on the sides it does not work for me.
Support I do get what people mean about this not being the most balanced or aesthetic composition, but the immense resolution and detail make this an impressive technical feat and an important and useful document. Cmao20 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is a very small stitching error along the ridgeline to the right of the peak at rear. But the only way you'll see it (other than randomly coming across it like I have) is if you go looking for it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome as always! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 02:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Place de l'Horloge in Nimes 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 15:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Could be a good VI, but I'm not awestruck by the composition, and I'd prefer a more nearly dead-on view of the tower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours, and composition seems OK. We’ve certainly promoted much worse night photography. Cmao20 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those colorful lights (green at the left, blue in the center) are too disco for me. Also the composition doesn't work in my view, with this intrusive wall on the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weather observations in Antarctica.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 17:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Tsy1980 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The place where this photo was taken is wow, but the main person is looking down (and that is not really impressive) --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - She's looking down to get her footing in the snow, I think. I like the form, the interesting apparatus and the stark snowscape with an incline in the distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural way of walking which indicates discomfort of receiving a photo --Wilfredor (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I particularly like the way she walks minding her steps so she doesn't stumble in this unnatural environment for humans.--G Furtado (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the most recent image, but still impressive --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do like the Hoth-ish atmosphere in this, but the composition just isn't awesome. To have someone centered in that vast emptiness looks unbalanced to me, a more panoramic view with more space left or right would have been nice. --Cart (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but effective composition. Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite small resolution but the problem here is in my opinion the composition centered on the lady, as Cart noticed, since her sight looking down is not really photogenic, per Michielverbeek -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michiel and Cart. --BoothSift 20:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pangong lake - Ladakh.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2019 at 14:17:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Eatcha - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition is very nice and probably FP level, but it falls short in technical quality. It looks oversharpened and with quite a lot of artefacts visible at full resolution. Not sure why this should be the case - I'd have thought a Canon DSLR should be able to do a bit better. Maybe we could have a go at reprocessing it from the original RAW files, if you have them? Cmao20 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the view is lovely but I'm afraid the technical quality of the photo is not up to FP standards. There are compression issues and lots of artefacts. I recommend you take a look at the other FP nature images so you can get a sense of what is needed to reach FP status.--Peulle (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Yes, that's a wonderful place, and it deserves better treatment. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately I do not have the RAW files. Eatcha (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Eatcha (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddhist deities boulders Shey Monastery.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2019 at 19:52:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Eatcha - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor image quality, unrealistic look --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: bad image quality: noise, halos, overprocessing, unrealistic colors ... – Lucas 20:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info You might want to nominate your photos at COM:QIC before trying here. That way you will get feedback about them and how they can be improved. You can also take a look at COM:PT for tips about how to fix your images. --Cart (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Eatcha (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, LVM-Versicherung -- 2019 -- 3991.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019 at 10:15:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 10:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 10:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't see much in the way of wow factor here.--Peulle (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Didn't expect to support at first, but after considering it for a while, I like the interplay of lines and shapes here. Cmao20 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This might be nice without the tree and the road. Yann (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition and much more interesting to look at than many other photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The asphalt street doesn't work for me. Absolutely uninteresting part, and the two main horizontal lines are not parallel. This shot looks experimental in a way there are aesthetic flaws. For example one curved branch of the tree is interfering badly with the architectural lines of the building. The first floor is cut in a unpleasant way. Reflections on the windows on the top. The small bushes at the left are just distracting and make the composition cluttered. Too many problems in my opinion for a yellow triangle that is not gorgeous -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. -- Karelj (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it doesn't work for me as an abstract photograph because of small distracting elements, like the stray branches of the tree and the dirt on the sidewalk. – Lucas 20:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of "wow". --BoothSift 00:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info I've extracted the main parts of the image. The cropped version may be better. (The parallels are adjusted too.) --XRay ^talk 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my reasons stated above. – Lucas 20:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still lacks any wow factor. --BoothSift 00:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 04:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 05:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wat Si Saket in its paved courtyard Vientiane Laos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 03:28:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a good photo. I'll think about it some more, but I'm not really feeling it as an FP, at least at the moment. I think if you could get this view during a sunrise or sunset with some amazing purple clouds, or maybe with crepuscular rays streaming from behind storm clouds, it would be spectacular and an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise or sunset are not possible due to the incompatible opening hours. This is the oldest temple of Vientiane (capital of Laos), then quite an important heritage. I couldn't find a better picture of this wat on the web, but please give a link if I'm wrong -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I note this. Best in scope is more of a Valued Image argument, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Like I said above, I think this is a very good QI/VI, but it's not wowing me, I think mainly because of the light and clouds and secondly, the slightly random-looking crop of the palm tree, which is probably unavoidable and is probably the best crop you could make. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Milseburg (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It probably would be ideal in sunlight, but that might conversely make it hard to render the building's colors equally at this angle, and so I'm OK with this until and unless a really good one in sunlight shows up. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support but you need at least 50 edits on commons before voting on FPC, please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2019 at 00:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Philippe Halsman, uploaded by Trialsanderrors, nominated by Yann (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the previous nomination, there were some concerns about the copyright. I think these are relieved, as the deletion was closed as kept. If someone has a better suggestion for the category, welcome. --Yann (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic Dalí's madness picture. I prefer Commons:Featured pictures/Historical. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's bizarre as hell and I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally something crazier than my photos. :-) --Cart (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's completely nuts. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor cats :-) How many shots did they take before keeping this one ? But we can see they didn't know Photoshop at this time, since the nylon threads sustaining the objects are clearly visible :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The description says that it took 28 shots. This is also the original before the wires and hands were retouched out (that's what it was called before Photoshop). Post-production in some way is as old as the art of photography. --Cart (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read more about it here.--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, but "the Spanish artist suggested they blow up a duck using dynamite" Gore -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic and crazy in the best possible way. Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Yann: Changed to Commons:Featured pictures/Historical. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!!!--BoothSift 03:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Nürnberg Kaiserburg obere Kapelle 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 10:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Interior of the upper chapel of the Imperial Castle, Nuremberg, Middle Franconia, Bavaria, Germany. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The photo is not completely balanced for me. The pillar on the right is cut off at the top. The crucifix in the middle is also somewhat unhappy with regard to the window. The light on the right is also a bit disturbing for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall a good quality interior, even considering the above criticisms. Cmao20 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The pillar on the left is not vertical. At the bottom, there's a disturbing dark part (not horizontal). Shame also the view is asymmetrical. The right pillar is cut -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing so special for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah it doesn't quite make me go "wow" either.--Peulle (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Slight perspective/distortion issue noted by Basile, awkward crop on left and distracting highlight in upper right. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good but the compo is too cluttered and the lack of symmetry is annoying --Poc o² 10:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Nice use of photo framing Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Karelj--BoothSift 03:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 13:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:MosMetro KomsomolskayaKL img2 asv2018-01.jpg (delist and replace), delisted and replaced[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 15:43:54 (UTC)

Info Komsomolskaya-KL station of Moscow Metro, all by A.Savin. Here is the original nomination. Now, after some consideration, I have reworked the second picture a bit to give more pleasant levels etc. Although there are no trains, I find this one better, also given the more generous crop on the ceiling. This crop is not possible on the first image. I also think, maybe, it is even better without trains, as they obscure some detail on the wall and they itself are not that nice. So, all in all I think the photo w/o trains should be featured and the photo with trains should then be delisted, because it's very similar.
Delist and replace --A.Savin 15:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace - I prefer the proposed replacement because it's brighter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cart (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per Ikan. The new one is quite simply better. Thanks for keeping FPC up to date. :) --Peulle (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note however that the second one is not new -- it was taken+uploaded at the same time as the first one. --A.Savin 11:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Per Ikan. --BoothSift 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Per nominator's arguments. Framing is better IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. --A.Savin 00:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:FaroPuntadelEste.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 22:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Through no fault of yours, the lower part of the photo is cluttered, but the result is what I think is not a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed tilted, thanks!!! @Uoaei1: Ezarateesteban 16:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is leaning even more --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the picture might need cropping a little on the right hand side. Look in the bottom right corner - there are a few white pixels. Cmao20 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See now @Cmao20: --Ezarateesteban 23:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. The motif looks quite ordinary. I´m not sure, whether there is enough wow if it becomes technically perfect.--Milseburg (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportMarinna (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neither the light nor the composition are very successful in my view. Beside, there's a problem at the top right of the image with an intrusive white line, suggesting a bad crop after perspective correction -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or a tilt correction. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The technical flaws—what Basile saw, the still-off perspective and the considerable purple fringing around almost every sharp edge—are correctable, but when they are I still won't see an FP here, because of all the clutter at the bottom. Not your fault, but long narrow images like this generally work best when we can look from bottom to top without much to distract. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. --BoothSift 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silhouette of a fisherman on his pirogue at sunrise in Si Phan Don Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2019 at 02:26:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The right crop might not be ideal, but I don't really care. Great feeling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the sun is not exactly centered. This is standard 3:2 ratio (ready to print), and I prefer not to cut either the sky or the bottom giving space to the boat. Also the margin at the right can be considered as lead room. But your remark is constructive. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my only nitpick is that you've bisected an islet of vegetation. But so what? Landscape painters do that kind of thing all the time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the blue sky at the top helps the mood. A more landscape aspect (16:9 or even narrower) would be better, and I'd prefer the boat further to the left in the composition. Unlike landscape painters, we can't just paint the boat where we want it, though. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After several attempts of framing, including a 16:9 ratio, I've decided to keep the 3:2 format, but removing the little islet of vegetation at the right, as suggested by Ikan. I think it improves a little bit the composition, and centers the sun slightly better. An alternative could be proposed but to be honest, I don't think these slight differences change so much here. Then, because there are currently more color shades in the sky when not cut, I keep this 3:2. Thanks for the reviews -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing mood! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 11:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me--BoothSift 17:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evocative and atmospheric. Cmao20 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect shot, now I feel jealous Eatcha (talk)3:29 PM, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Milan Bališin (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But really! 16:9 sky cropped works very much better. --Hockei (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Charles (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but just too late now it's closed :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GREIDER Carol 2014 - Less vignetting.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2019 at 12:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Keith Weller, uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background is ugly and clashes with the colors of her clothes – Lucas 13:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Bayoustarwatch (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Bayoustarwatch, please read the guidelines and do some other edits before you start voting here. --Cart (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bayoustarwatch, please also keep in mind that oppose votes require an explanation. – Lucas 18:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I disagree with Lucas on this one. The blue sweater is perfectly OK and the background being a similar though not identical shade of blue is very relaxing to me. Good composition, very sharp portrait, especially of her head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. -- Karelj (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. --BoothSift 00:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starling at a birdhouse (92030).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2019 at 04:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In Staten Island there's a park where, many years ago, a local eccentric set up a whole bunch of birdhouses a few feet from the ocean (i.e.), and now other people in the neighborhood keep them up. They were built for migrating purple martins, but the rest of the year other birds call them home. This starling was there, keeping watch, the whole time I was there in January. A starling isn't the most exciting bird, but something about this picture (maybe the bird, maybe the light, maybe the simplicity) makes me enjoy looking at it, so I figure it's worth seeing if others agree. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well balanced, very nice, homely yet airy ambiance and the starling is surprisingly sharp. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexpose area, whites too bright Ezarateesteban 11:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will never understand why very white can't be very white on FPC. Not all photos need to include 50 shades of gray. --Cart (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ezarate. The right part is very bright. That is one very mitigating factor which prevents me from supporting now (even if the bird is cute). Cart, it's nice to discuss but please also let the reviewers have their own feelings and express these feelings on a candidature even if they disagree with your vote and personal taste. Ezarate doesn't say a wrong thing, doesn't talk about blown highlights for example, but just feel that there's an overexposed area. I share this feeling. Perhaps the picture can be improved in its overall aspect, perhaps it cannot because the light is just harsh. Aesthetic consideration in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezarate and Basile Morin: I've just uploaded a new version which recovers more of the highlights than I thought I'd be able to. What do you think? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this local correction has improved the whole because the right side of the two boards on the left has been forgotten -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: Good point! These were harder for some reason. One more new version uploaded. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ezarate, I checked in Photoshop and the highlights are controlled well, just a few pixels are clipped in non-connected areas. There is still plenty of structure of the wood in the data. My opinion is that small surfaces that are very bright when seen in person are allowed to be very close to pure white. There are minor CAs on cracks in the wood though. – Lucas 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: Thanks. CA removed now. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Normal, not bad image, but nothing special for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Karelj. --BoothSift 00:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Karelj. -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Karelj. Charles (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too late, but I like this picture. The simple, stark lines of the composition, as well as the way the frame is dominated by only a few colours - white, blue and the black of the bird itself - mean that for me it's an appealing photo to look at. If anything I prefer the version where the highlights haven't been 'recovered' - pure white exists in real life, and we shouldn't be afraid of it. I guess most people disagree, but thanks for nominating it anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 16:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pride Of Milford. Stirling Falls.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2019 at 01:21:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Bernard Spragg - uploaded by Boothsift - nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 01:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- BoothSift 01:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines --BoothSift 03:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overexposed waterfall, small. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor image quality: exposure, smudginess, low detail. In my opinion your camera does not produce high enough image quality for FP if there aren't any other strong mitigating factors. – Lucas 08:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucasbosch, but I'm afraid it's not the camera itself. Too many errors that are already related to the in-camera-processing of the photo. I'd check if the Lumix you have could write raw files to the SD-card for better post processing possibilites. --Granada (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is capable of taking raw images. This camera is rather similar to mine. Unfortunately, this author is from Flickr so I doubt he will get the message. --Cart (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, for me it isn't FP. Composition may be acceptable, but quality not. Low resolution, sharpness, overexposed lights, ... --XRay ^talk 17:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Per the reviews. @Lucasbosch: , @Granada: , Unfortunately the author is from Flickr so he may not get the message. --BoothSift 23:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 10:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calcutta High Court - 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019 at 16:43:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Indrajitdas - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the main subject is on dark area and around of the place shown there is a lot of garbage, no special composition for me Ezarateesteban 23:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with regret. I like the composition very much but I don't think the quality's there. The whole image seems to have a lack of sharpness and fine detail, possibly from overaggressive noise reduction. Cmao20 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas 20:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: poor quality per reviews--BoothSift 01:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 16:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosie the Riveter (Vultee) DS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2019 at 20:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Alfred T. Palmer / U.S. Office of War Information, uploaded by Bogdan, nominated by Yann (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the FP at the English Wikipedia. Do you think I should nominate an alternative? -- Yann (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, here is the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rosie the Riveter where three images were proposed.

File:Rosie the Riveter (Vultee).jpg -- The original 52MP image from Library of Congress.
File:Rosie the Riveter (Vultee) edit1(corrected).jpg -- A cropped and downsampled version with some adjustments to tone/levels.
File:Rosie the Riveter (Vultee) DS.jpg -- A version downsampled and sharpened by Diliff. This is the nomination here and the FP on en:wp.

-- Colin (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the various arguments at en:wp but they are a bit dated (2008) with concerns about large file size (not sure why since WP only displays a thumb). Since Commons is a media repository, and any of the other edits can be derived from the original, and there isn't really anything wrong with the original other than being huge and a little soft if you pixel-peep, I think we should support the original version. Yann, could you offer that as an alt? -- Colin (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Historic photo and quite good quality, no need for any kind of digital restoration or other tinkering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive quality for a 76-year old photograph. Here's this version at the same resolution than the one above -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice historic photo. 😄--BoothSift 02:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support She's a woman, she's black, and she's working in a factory in 1943. This is one of the reasons the allies won the war.--Peulle (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

The chosen alternative is: File:Rosie the Riveter (Vultee).jpg

File:View of Calico Hills at Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area from Scenic Loop Drive.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 18:50:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_States_of_America
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All the colors and structures are great, but the uniform lighting creates the effect that I can't really tell how steep the red stone formation and is nauseating to look at. On closer view, there aren't really any details but all smooth areas like a pastel painting. Some weird processing or result of the atmosphere perhaps? – Lucas 21:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Processing error, it might be too sharp and too strong denoised --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lift interior at Santos Place.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 00:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created and uploaded by Kgbo - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really wowed. Also seems a bit off on the top --BoothSift 00:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice abstraction but too small resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but also there are many distracting blurry spots on the lower wall – Lucas 08:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be nice to see more abstract photography here, but this one isn't really speaking to me. I don't really see what's aesthetic about the patterns here. Cmao20 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Molino del Rey Los Pinos Mexico 2018 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2019 at 23:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Drkgk - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition is really good, but the image needs more sharpness. Please look for example at the details top left. A better resolution would be good too. --XRay ^talk 10:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support purely because of the composition. I think this is such a striking motif that it deserves to be featured. The resolution doesn't bother me too much because it's not the kind of subject that benefits from looking at it in fine detail, such as a church interior or one of Poco's dune panoramas - although higher resolution would be nice, the image is striking and impressive even at this size. Perhaps I was wrong that the iPhone can't take FP-quality shots. Cmao20 (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per XRay. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for FP nominaton. -- Karelj (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough IMO. --BoothSift 01:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caracas city, Venezuela capital.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2019 at 23:04:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info We should lower requirements for dangerous cities. All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muito bom! Pena que a situação política e social esteja delicada demais para apreciarmos mais desse país e obter mais candidatas. Também sugiro um corte para enquadrar melhor a foto e retirar o ônibus/van cortado do lado esquerdo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think we should lower standards in that this is an ordinary motif with an uninteresting sky. Don't get me wrong: It's a good photo. But it's not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan – Lucas 09:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The image quality is good, but I think you maybe weren't very lucky with the light conditions. It makes everything look a little bland and featureless. Cmao20 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just another generic picture of a city, I'm unfortunately not wowed by this. Good quality though--BoothSift 02:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BoothSift--Der Angemeldete (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAV Canidae, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 06:33:09 (UTC)

Info Bases on previous discussion, I gather all Canidae skeletons displayed at MAV - edited by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton - uploaded by Joalpe and Sturm - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 06:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 06:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - There are certainly differences in the way these skeletons are photographed. For example, some are yellower or darker than others. But overall, this is a notable achievement, even if a little eerie. Also, it's fitting but in a way odd that one of the skeletons is of a mutt, because there are so many different mixtures possible in a mutt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this is different to Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/MAV I. Canidae is a huge family of creatures. As others have noted, I wouldn't expect a collection of Lez's shells to be nominated as a set, or a collection of Jee's butterflies to be nominated as a set. The final one (Saint Bernard dog) is poor quality. As the FP page says: "Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats". Here we have a few species/breeds of canids: there are 34 species, and hundreds of breeds of dogs. The fact that this may be the entire collection currently at MAV isn't IMO enough to make this a set, it just tells me that their collection is rather limited. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Yann (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile is right below about the blown highlights. Yann (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Certainly good VI candidates, but this one is relatively small and the head is unsharp, this one has blown highlights. I don't think each of them would be promoted if they were nominated separately, thus I don't see why they should be as a set -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sturm (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joalpe como sempre com as melhores contribuições fotográficas. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. – Lucas 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great collective work. And thanks, ArionEstar ;) --Joalpe (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This support vote was canvassed. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Voting issues with Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton and Joalpe -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile and Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vote stricken per Colin's observation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, Obvious canvassing is just stupid and childish. And per the set itself: Is it complete series of something, or some are missing ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No system, a random mixture of a few of much more Canidae species and of a few of a lot of races of dogs --Llez (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile and Colin.--BoothSift 00:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giant anteater at MAV-USP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 19:43:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info edited by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Sturm - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 19:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 19:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, and high EV. However I think there is too much contrast/light compared to the original version. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The black support pole visually cutting off one foot should have been avoided. Also I'm not a fan of the typography on the scale (very condensed font and there should be a space between number and unit symbol). – Lucas 22:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, that black pole should have been avoided. --@Boothsift 02:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch and Boothsift: you are both requesting something impossible. The pole holds the whole body, there is a reason why is so close to the legs... the sustainability.

@Yann: the background is more clear, and the bone is more close to the reality, that said, I can bring down the brightness. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 03:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joalpe (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This support vote was canvassed. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Voting issues with Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton and Joalpe -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prove it. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was proven to my satisfaction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand about the black pole but otherwise this is just not up to the standards of other animal-skeleton-on-black-background pics we've promoted. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mrs. Fiske, "Love finds the way" - Zaida Ben Yusuf. LCCN2006677585 - Restoration, levels tweaked.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019 at 13:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Zaida Ben-Yusuf - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job! Nice restoration. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Shadows were raised without using the RAW file resulting in more noise, the contrast was diminished causing loss of some forms (where it was black now it is gray and where it was gray now it still gray), the image has an added tone, finally there is a white cut at the edge of the image not present in the original. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: This is an old picture. RAW doesn't exist. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yann this version is what i call RAW a directly scanned tiff image with more dinamic rang and excellent to perform restoration. The restoration should be done using tiff file and not a jpeg. IMHO --Wilfredor (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, restoration should be done from the TIFF file, and that's certainly what Adam did. RAW is a technical term specific to digital photography. I think it best to use the correct term. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good restoration as ever, and I like her expression. Cmao20 (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice photo. What do you know about the name, "Love finds the way"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: I believe that's one of the plays she acted in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 123 years old -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above--BoothSift 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Sellagruppe von Süden Col Rodella.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019 at 14:41:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of the best pictures I've seen on here. A beautiful composition and extraordinary resolution. I don't know how a 110 megapixel image can be this sharp at pixel level. Cmao20 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: Easy if you have the right camera. ;oD Just joking, of course... Yann (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Europe truly does have amazing landscapes. --BoothSift 02:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW, 18,000 × 6,088 pixels -- Eatcha (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as well. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines --BoothSift 03:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poc o² 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:War memorial, Millport, Cumbrae, Scotland.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 07:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded by User:Podzemnik nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I feel the majesty of the tall monument before this far-reaching expanse of water and land and the streaming clouds and wonder what it has witnessed over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the left and right edges of the statue have CAs, the sidewalk in the very bottom of frame is not aligned well – Lucas 08:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't notice CA and I'm still not sure I really see any at absolute pixel-peeping size, though I'm sure Podzemnik will fix that if he can see it. But as for the sidewalk: If you want this view past the monument, you by definition cannot have the sidewalk be perfectly horizontal. I hope you mean "not aligned well" in some other way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can see the camera could have been moved to the right to align the sidewalk and the elements visible behind the statue (islands etc. ) would have looked the same. I don't see any particluar thing in the background that would be obscured then, for example. Also the fencepost in front of the statue would then be nicely in center. – Lucas 08:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The light is wrong for me.--Peulle (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I see what you like about this one. It helps that there's such an interesting sky. Quality issues are for me very minor given the compositional merits of the photo. Cmao20 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The landscape has something, the building is simply ugly -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but I don't find it ugly. It's a British war memorial - they all look relatively similar, but they're supposed to be stark and sombre, and I personally find an austere beauty in it. Cmao20 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fence is as hideous as the architecture -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was it you said about "please also let the reviewers have their own feelings and express these feelings on a candidature even if they disagree with your vote and personal taste". ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I said that to you (here). Cmao20's seems embarrassed by my vote. Sorry if we disagree, this user is free to support, but for me this building is ugly and has no charm. We discuss, and not convinced, I explain what is particularly hideous. Where's the problem ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Basile, there is no problem with your comment from my perspective. People have different tastes in these things. I was only expressing that I disagreed, I'm not upset by your vote. Cmao20 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy we can discuss serenely. Just that enclosed construction in concrete has no attractiveness in my view, and due to the unappealing light, I don't see it as FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'll rather not pick sides. --BoothSift 03:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although it's from Britan, I support this by feeling. Even the ugly fence don't destroy the sky grass stone light combination in the background. As for a featured picture this should be sufficient.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree the light on the monument is not good. Compare to File:War memorial, Millport, Cumbrae, Scotland 02.jpg with golden light. This monument is not that impressive with back lighting. Also agree that a step to the right might have aligned the fence more centrally and the path more perpendicular. I do wish the local council hadn't spoiled the scene with a bright blue sign informing the stupid that this is a war memorial. -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That view is nowhere near as interesting. I feel like some of you are getting lost in the details, but that's my point of view and obviously, to you and other opposers, details like the lack of absolute perpendicularity of the path are important. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - There aren't going to suddenly be 8 supporting votes for this photo, so there's no point in dragging this process out. The combination of the backlighting and the lack of perfect regularity in the amount of path breaks too many FPC conventions, and then with objections to the appearance of the memorial itself added, this just deviates too much from FPC taste to have a chance, as it turns out. Thanks to all who voted or commented on this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan I only referenced the other view wrt the light on the monument. Backlighting could work if the memorial had an interesting and identifiable silhouette shape. -- Colin (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, but you weren't the only one who mentioned light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ансамбль Новгородского Кремля.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 20:27:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by EkaterinaKhomichenko - uploaded by EkaterinaKhomichenko - nominated by Piotr Bart -- Piotr Bart (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too hazy, tilted horizon. Overall the composition doesn't make much sense, it's a random angle seemingly decided by circumstance of the lift off position. – Lucas 20:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hypholoma fasciculare, (Sulphur tuft,) (29436695887).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2019 at 15:37:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created by Bernard Spragg - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Bayoustarwatch (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Bayoustarwatch, please read the guidelines and do some other edits before you start voting here. --Cart (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not enough detail, strong contrast with chrushed shadows and oversaturated unnatural colors. – Lucas 18:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Lucas Poc o² 18:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very nice group of mushrooms, but the quality and as Lucas points out, level of detail, are not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. --BoothSift 23:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Afraid I agree with others. The framing is good, but the size and quality are not quite there. Cmao20 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is unlikely to overcome all the opposes at this point

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melia azedarach, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 16:25:29 (UTC)

Reflection of Bakain tree (Melia azedarach) near pond of Kuruwapari Chaudharitol- Inaruwa, Kosi Municipality.
Reflection of Bakain tree (Melia azedarach) near pond of Kuruwapari Chaudharitol- Inaruwa, Kosi Municipality

Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - You're nominating this as a set? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bijay chaurasia: please make it clear if your nomination is a set or an alternative -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think the quality's there. --BoothSift 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality seems good to me, and I like the simplicity of the composition. The colours and the light are also very good. However I'm not sure of the need to feature both pictures - they are showing identical scenes, after all, and I don't think they're different enough both to become FPs. Given this, is it possible for me to vote to Support the landscape picture and to Oppose the portrait picture, for now at least? If consensus builds around the portrait picture I would be happy to switch those votes around to help the image pass - I prefer the landscape composition but there's not much in it. Cmao20 (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments @Ikan Kekek: , @Basile Morin: and @Cmao20: . I am trying to create set and this one is my first set of image in FPC. I am bit confused while creating this set although i did it. Actually I want to know that this set is valid or not if yes then i would love to nominate this as set if not then alternative is best option IMHO. Thanks again and please suggest me what is the best option you prefer. --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bijay chaurasia, it seems you have misunderstood some of the process here. This is not a set as per the FPC guidline. A set is different aspects of a subject, like perhaps this tree at sunrise, at midday and at night, this is the same view but only in different formats. As "Alternatives" they don't work either. Nominating an FPC is also about selecting the very best photo as in one photo. Nominations are made with one photo, and if voters suggest changes to that photo, then an alternative is created. Very rarely the alternative is a totally different photo. So you need to withdraw this set nom, select the photo you think is the very best and nominate that one. If you need help choosing, you should ask at Commons:Photography critiques or by asking other users or friends. I look forward to seeing one of the photos here again. --Cart (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @W.carter: for the suggestion. :) --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.07.03.-22-Glubig-Melang-Fliess Wendisch Rietz--Weisse Seerose.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2019 at 11:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Nymphaeacea
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice reflection but the light doesn't quite work for me.--Peulle (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent light --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty flower, but drab light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the past years ago I always was impelled here to make my pictures brighter and brighter untill you couldn't see fine structures, details and shadow plays in the bright areas no more. I won't let me inveigled to replay this mistake. --Hockei (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't want that. I'm reacting to the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Ikan Kekek, ArionEstar, Moroder, Karelj, and Peulle: I changed the WB a bit. See new version. Please take a look if you (still) like it (now). --Hockei (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Borderline oversharpened, though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't know why, but somehow, that edit made the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although there is a slight to the left, but correctable --Llez (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me one of the weakest pictures in this collection. Totally unimpressing. --Der Angemeldete (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, St.-Paulus-Dom, Chorumgang -- 2019 -- 3920.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2019 at 06:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe if you crop out the IMO uninteresting part on the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During the nomination of the photograph I got the same idea. Now I'm sure. I'll crop out the bottom as soon as possible. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 07:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done It's now 4:3 - and it's better. --XRay ^talk 13:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed better. I'm undecided on whether to support, though, I think mainly because of the top, which is quite difficult to figure out an optimal crop for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand any decision. The top was a difficult decision too. For the whole top the image should be made with an aspect ratio of 1:2 or 1:3. IMO too much. --XRay ^talk 09:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different Poc o² 10:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop IMO. Too much empty space below, and random crop above.--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--BoothSift 00:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schlumbergera (actm) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 16:24:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Cactaceae.
Info Schlumbergera, Christmas cactus. Flowering houseplant in the Netherlands.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy but very nice. --Hockei (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the "japanese" way, and the background. Noise very acceptable, a delicate photograph.--Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon, although I would say the style and "painting technique" is Chinese. ;-) --Cart (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry...--Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo! --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bravo! Seven Pandas (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think closer crops that remove more of the empty space could be argued for, but I don't find that a reason not to support. Beautiful and delicate per others, and the noise is really minimal, to the point of not being worth a mention. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo! --BoothSift 02:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this turned by 180°? I know this plant only with hanging flowers. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That hardly matters since plants can be photographed from any angle, like the two currently nominated water lilies as opposed to the previously FPs. (1 2 and 3) Creativity is good. --Cart (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, ceativity is good. But IMHO photographs in an encycolpedia should show flowers as they are in reallity. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is equvalent to having a flower cut and placed in a bouquet or flower arrangement where no flowers are in their natural alignment, but still good to photograph. And as stated so many, many times before: Commons is not just to service Wikipedia with photos, but for all wiki-projects as well as other projects, present and future. All good photos are welcome. (FP general rules section 7: 7.Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.) There are presently 12 other wiki-projects and this would make a wonderful cover for a Wikibook. --Cart (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support ok, I agree to Cart and found the answer to my question here: File:Schlumbergera - Flickr - blumenbiene (1).jpg --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for clarity. This is an ascending plant with sturdy leaves with the flower on it.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love this. Others said it above, but it looks like a painting. I think a lot of it comes down to not just the angle/composition of the plant itself, but the contrast between the color of the flower and this particular background color. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart, although I could see cropping a lot of the space at left and top out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Jebulon... and Cart. Both may be right --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomat. ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit more detail would be feasible, but overall a nice motif Poc o² 18:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Nice motif, but background color bothers me a little. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seiser Alm Langkofel Pferdeschlitten.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 19:48:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 02:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good Wolfgang one !--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--KlauRau (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice motif and background but I miss a bit more of dynamic here and the centered composition is not helping much for that. Poc o² 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I just love the composition! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Der Angemeldete (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info On my screen, the snow has a slightly greenish/yellowish tint. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NGREMU704 train at Indooroopilly railway station 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 23:40:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created and uploaded by Kgbo - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, normal train, just a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, a QI at most. --BoothSift 03:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm OK with the light but otherwise agree with the others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I see absolutely nothing that would set this apart from the other thousands of snapshots of trains in train stations. --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ok...another train. Looks kind of noisy, especially on the brighter parts.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad quality for a phone picture, but I don't really see it as an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's not going to overcome all these opposes, not with only one support and two days ago, at that

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nelli Matula - Ilosaarirock 2018 - 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2019 at 07:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Teevee - nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MB-one (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlucky - that spotlight behind her head is really ruining the shot for me.--Peulle (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me that's the biggest part of the appeal. --MB-one (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having a light in an unusual position can add to the photo and add a new dimension to the compo (1 or 2), like it could symbolize her clear light voice or something. This looks more like she is about to be possessed by an alien light entity. I might have seen too many sci-fi movies... --Cart (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with MB-one here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the light ruins it for me. --BoothSift 03:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart, the Alien symbolism is too strong for me – Lucas 08:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin 50 Pfennig 1921 Tiergarten.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 22:31:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Issued by the City of Berlin (1921), reproduced, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--BoothSift 01:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Daubeny's water lily at BBG (50824).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2019 at 04:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite a beautiful flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? --BoothSift 05:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Ikan Kekek --Eatcha (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and colors, beautiful specimen -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines--BoothSift 03:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few days ago I told Lightroom to shrink a different image to 80% so it would fit as a Twitter upload, but then I forgot to put it back to 100%. The version I nominated was thus 80% of its original size. I've just uploaded another version of the same image, restored to its full size. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Details… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Senlis Cathedral Exterior, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 13:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info The exterior of Senlis Cathedral viewed from the south in Place de Notre Dame in Picardy, France. A Roman Catholic church originally built between 1153 and 1191, its thirteenth-century south tower reaches a height of 78 metres. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm quite distracted by that V of contrails or perhaps clouds in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each to their own, I guess. It doesn’t bother me personally. Of course it’d be easy to clone it away, but I don’t really see why we should change reality like that (plus I wouldn’t really want to change Diliff’s picture unless I were correcting an obvious problem or technical error). I nominated this one not because I felt it was perfect in every way but because it’s a high-resolution and pin-sharp picture of a very interesting church under nice light. But of course you are entitled to disagree, and I am grateful for your review anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks @G Furtado: for pointing out a stitching error on the tower (see notes on image page). My fault for not examining the picture closely enough before nominating. I have spotted a few more stitching errors, caused by misalignment of the same frame. I will try to correct these myself (which is of course challenging without the original image files), and I still believe the corrected image would be FP material, but for now let's withdraw this one. Thanks to all who voted. Cmao20 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could someone perhaps advise if I'm supposed to archive my own withdrawn nomination? Happy to do so but don't want to break any rules. Cmao20 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's easiest to place a FPC confirmed results at the end so the bot will archive it. – Lucas 20:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shall remember that. Thanks. Cmao20 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lucasbosch, like I said before, if you just tag the nom, it will be on the list probaly for the full nine days since it has some support and the bot is broken. If you want a cleaned up list you need to move it yourself to the current log: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2019. (Unless someone fixed the bot since last week.) --Cart (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter, I wasn't aware that the bot will also not recognise this configuration. – Lucas 06:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucasbosch, the bot is very erratic and you never know what might make it do or skip its tasks. Miraculously it worked this time! I was told they changed the crontab recently, maby that did the trick. Anyway, thanks for helping out with keeping the list clean and up to date. :-) --Cart (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 20:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hereford Cathedral Nave, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2019 at 12:54:05 (UTC)

Hereford Cathedral's nave looking towards the choir, viewed from the west.
Hereford Cathedral's nave looking towards the western entrance and stained glass windows, viewed from the east

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Two images of the nave of Hereford Cathedral, from opposite ends of the nave. Originally a Norman church, the cathedral has been heavily restored, not least after the collapse of the west tower in 1786; much of the original Norman architecture remains, however. The images are already featured on the English Wikipedia. I felt a set nomination was appropriate here, following the precedent of the York Minster nomination. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The usual high standard others try to meet. Though I think File:Hereford Cathedral Choir, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg is the best of the photos, which is presumably why Diliff nominated that one earlier. -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess the architecture of the choir is a little more distinctive. Worth noting that Diliff did nominate both of these at English Wikipedia FPC though, I'm surprised he never got round to them here. Cmao20 (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As always. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think only one would have been "featurable". To nominate two is problematic: nobody noticed the differences of colors of the ground/pavement ? One of the two is wrong.--Jebulon (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: I see what you mean, but I don't think it necessarily means one of the two is 'wrong'. Look at the EXIF data - the first image was taken at 3:43pm, the second at 4:05pm. Most probably the lighting conditions within the church had changed slightly between the two pictures - but I don't think that's an avoidable problem given the amount of time it takes to produce these pictures. Both images are still faithful depictions of the church as it was on that day - just at slightly different times. Cmao20 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Light will also alter colors depending on camera angle to it. These two photos are taken in different directions = different light = different colors. --Cart (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 02:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Tallinsky Park - 2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 15:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Dzasohovich - uploaded by Dzasohovich - nominated by Dzasohovich -- Dzasohovich (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dzasohovich (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't get me at all.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The long, curving bunch of lampposts is a nice element, but to me, it's not enough to make the photo a great composition, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas 20:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow factor. --BoothSift 23:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unfortunately I generally agree with the above. The composition is good though, I think it's the light conditions that were a bit lacking - under a nice blue sky, or a stormy sky, I'd have supported. The other thing that bothers me a little is the unsharpness of the nearest lamp-post. Cmao20 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per other thanks --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too many oppose votes, no more possibilities --Ezarateesteban 23:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Ezarate You must always sign your edits, especially when you put a FPX on a nomination so it will get a time stamp and the rest of us can see when the 24 hours are up. --Cart (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:River views of Brisbane CBD, January 2019.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 23:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created and uploaded by Kgbo - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Relatively small for a panorama, not really sharp at full resolution, the light is not great -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 03:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't look a close look at it at first. --BoothSift 23:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, for me it's not FP. Sharpness must be better and perspective issues. --XRay ^talk 06:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per XRay.--Peulle (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice photo, but the iPhone does not show enough details. Areas of similar colors (grass e.g.) are blurry, there seems to be some color noise in the buildings' details and for a panoramic overview it is too small in pixel count. --Granada (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good regular photo of a town.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas 20:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Granada - nice composition though. Cmao20 (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Granada. Daniel Case (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin D. Maxham - Henry David Thoreau - Restored - greyscale - straightened.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 12:31:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Benjamin D. Maxham, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question why was the original daguerrotype de-saturated to colorless grayscale? I'm certainly not an ecpert on this, but it looks to me like a gilded daguerrotype. In that case, the warm golden look is the intentional result of the default process in use at that time (kind of like a late 1800s Instagram filter), not a defect that should be "fixed". --El Grafo (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think we can reliably ascertain the original colors, as all old images become faded and yellowish over time. Moreover, this is to show Henry David Thoreau, not the daguerrotype process, and this is the best portrait we have of him. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like such radical "freshening up" of an old image. True, we can't know what color it was when it was brand new, but I think it should be preserved in the colors it has aged to. Museum people refers to this as keeping the patina. Making a totally B&W image might in some cases be ok for a photo on paper made from a negative where the paper has turned yellow, but this is a daguerreotype and as such it is the only copy. IMO it should be treated the same way as any other work of art, such as a painting. --Cart (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo and W.carter: Would you support the original? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I don't find the photo that remarcable. --Cart (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: This is a very famous personality, and there are only 2 known portraits of him. Also the resolution is high, and the quality is largely more than average for that time. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and those things would make up 2/3 of why a photo should be featured. The last third, wow-factor/artistry/something-that-makes-me-want-to-look-at-this-image is missing for me. Sorry, --Cart (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could see myself potentially supporting the original at VI. Otherwise I agree with everything W.carter wrote above. --El Grafo (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a retouched of a retouched of a retouched version. Now compared to the original, it has significantly more noise -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As for a photograph of 1856 (!) this looks like a perfect conservation status to me.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Historical photographs and daguerreotypes may fade or change tone but what we can be sure of is they were not printed on a black and white laser printer on Xerox copy paper, which is what this looks like. As El Grafo notes, the standard daguerreotype process produced warm tone, not a steel grey. And per Basile, this is much more noisy than the Google Art Project version. Let's appreciate aged photographs and historical photographic technology in the colours and tone it has. Restoring the GAP photo would be more interesting, and a real challenge for someone to preserve the texture of the daguerreotype grain, and avoid either softening to a blur or introducing digital noise like the nomination has. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Cart (though if this were originally in these tones, I'd say it's a pretty remarkable job). Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twizel landscape.NZ.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2019 at 05:19:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Bernard Spragg - uploaded by Boothsift - nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 05:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- BoothSift 05:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - That's tiny. Compare this to Morodor's fantastic panoramas of the Dolomites. I don't mean that all photos of mountains nominated here have to be huge stitched panoramas, but I don't see how this could be one of the best photos on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The size doesn't bother me so much as the 'smudginess' of the details at full resolution. The composition is really nice though. Cmao20 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: poor image quality (see oppose votes) – Lucas 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 08:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]