Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2019
File:Dobson Stream by Wharfedale hut with the moon, Mt Oxford area, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 23:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's Dobson Stream, quite a tiny stream in the winter landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand. There isn't any snow because this autumn was one of the hottest and driest ever recorded. The moon is hidden behind the clouds, that's why it looks overexposed. -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice and peaceful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Heavily processed in my opinion. Sky, bank, water, everything look a bit artificial. Too much clarity-contrast ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin I'm not sure what you mean by "heavily processed". I only adjusted a few things, mostly the temperature 'cause I thought it was too blue for my taste - perhaps that caused a bit of a "artifical" look. I've uploaded a new version with the original temperature settings from the camera. Otherwise it's not edited much - it's just a really wet and cold long exposure dusk during one of the shortest days of the year. Dead grass everywhere and a crazy Wikimedian with bare feet, a knee deep in the water. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hard to believe only the temperature was changed (among "a few things")
but Support then, based on your words. I like the light and the long exposure-- Basile Morin (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, the more I look at this, the more it looks fake, so I really need to judge from the RAW file how special this landscape is. Abstain for now -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hard to believe only the temperature was changed (among "a few things")
- Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot. Ahmadtalk 10:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support But I think you were right in your original edit wrt temperature. The slightly warmer tone provides a better contrast between the yellow grass and the water/sky. The current version does look a bit like it is through a blue filter. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin You'll be right, Colin, I adjusted the temperature again to where it was in original upload. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the cool, evening tone. Not the biggest fan of blurry water, personally, but I know it's fashionable and it doesn't bother me here. Cmao20 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Cmao20 Well, since the light was scarce, I didn't really have many other choices than longish exposure. But a good point, I'll try to take a water photo with very short exposure next time :) --Podzemnik (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 05:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- strong support All my life I have felt an attraction to all shades of blue. This 4 second exposure blends the incredibly deep blue of the mellow waters of Dobson Stream with the residual bluish illumination of the southern night sky. The result is a natural enhancement of saturation. These colours are completely different from those one experiences during daytime. And not to forget the highly symmetric intersecting quadruple V-shapes. Yes, full support! --Franz van Duns (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I have hesitated to respond to this photo. But due to the long exposure time, the natural power of this rapid has disappeared from the photo in my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose first river of mercury I have ever seen...--Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jebulon I don't understand this comment so I don't know what to say. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Translator stepping in) Jebulon is comparing the way the water looks to the liquid metal mercury and it is apparently not to his taste. Some other users normally refer to long exposure water images as "methane lakes", comparing them to the out-of-this-world Lakes of Titan that are liquefied gas. These long exposure photos are always dividing voters, some think it looks cool and other will find it too unnatural. --Cart (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, Cart. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mercury is a common filter on most of the image treatment softwares, to make things, like for example water, looking more or less like that. This is water yes, long exposure for sure, but mercury style aspect. Perhaps the oppose is because it lacks natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes of course. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Translator stepping in) Jebulon is comparing the way the water looks to the liquid metal mercury and it is apparently not to his taste. Some other users normally refer to long exposure water images as "methane lakes", comparing them to the out-of-this-world Lakes of Titan that are liquefied gas. These long exposure photos are always dividing voters, some think it looks cool and other will find it too unnatural. --Cart (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - nice mood. the vegetation is surprisingly sharp for a 4s shutter. no wind, I guess? :) — Rhododendrites talk | 00:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites That's right, nearly no wind which allowed me to go for longer exposure. Maybe on the tree tops you can see a bit of a motion blur. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Lutter 10 Pfg 1920.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2019 at 16:07:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
- Info Designed by Franz Jüttner, issued by the town of Lutter am Barenberge, reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05
- Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Does anyone know what it says? --Boothsift 05:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've added the text to the file description. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Bee arriving at hive sq.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2019 at 23:35:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
- Info Interestingly, there's loads of pics on Commons of bees in flight near flowers, frozen in the air with a focus trap, 1/4000 s shutter speed and sophisticated equipment. For bees approaching the hive the number of photos is less immeasurable (though the share of edited versions much higher), however the dynamics of bee flight is rarely to bee seen (with longer shutter speeds the wings very often are invisible). This point-and-shoot "portrait" is technically not 100% perfect because it's not staged but I found no comparable photo on Commons, and I hope you understand why I think "wow" when I look at this image. Created by Chianti - uploaded by Chianti - nominated by Chianti -- Chianti (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Chianti (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- CommentIf you think it’s the best image in scope, try Commons:Valued_images. Considering the excellent insect photos we’ve got, this is technically too far below standards, and even a bit overexposed IMO. The wooden structure in the lower left is distracting, I added a crop suggestion (which, btw, moves the bee in question closer to the rule-of-thirds). --Kreuzschnabel 11:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for your feedback, but FP is not for the technically best pictures. I'd never nominate this as a QI, I'll leave that to the focus-trap-artificial-background-flash-and-studio-equipment-excessive-photoshop techno guys I already mentioned and who have produced loads of excellent pictures of – nothing but single – bees. Sometimes I have the impression that people commenting and judging here are confusing technical quality and editing effort with image content.
- Take the POTY 2016 for example: technically far from perfect, the tower in the background between their heads is way too unblurry and distracting, but the photographer didn't take a step to the left and nonetheless managed to catch an incredibly great moment and won deservedly.
- I am far from claiming my image should compete for POTY but if you find another image on Commons where you see the contrast between an individual bee and its swarm symbolized by the difference of light and shadow combined with the difference of focus and out of focus plus the individual in flight and other bees sitting at the hive then please post the link. I didn't find a single one, and the reason is: it's incredibly hard to depict such contrast because even the equipment freaks cannot arrange and stage everything. Bees are social animals and the fact that only single bees are shown on the FP page is a shame either for the photographers or for the people judging FP nominations.
- Shooting a technically outstanding photo of a single Hymenoptera sitting on a flower is not hard, more than 20 FPs in the category prove it. And they are not really special, please read the introduction of FPC – also the part with the difficult subject.
- Show me an image on Commons of a bee in flight or even only sitting where the light part of the body is situated in front of a darker background and the darker part of the body in front of a lighter background. Show me one where you can see that – and how! – a bee moves its wings in flight and still its eye and antenna appear sharp on average desktop resolution. Ask yourself why none of the tech freaks was able to produce a FP where more than only one bee can be seen.
- I'm not sure what you mean with "overexposed", no one can avoid overexposure of sunlight reflection on shiny surfaces.
- I took a wider crop because I wanted to keep more information about the beehive, but I'll think about your suggestion.--Chianti (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose -- agree Kreuz and narrow DOF Seven Pandas (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I am not sure if you are familiar with basic principles and dependances of DOF, lens aperture and blurred background. You can either have a blurred background to isolate the subject or a wide DOF to get everything sharp. See the POTY I linked above and what I wrote about the message / content of the photo. That all the bees except one are in the shadow and, in addition, blurry, is intentional and essential for the idea of the image. Plus: even in a FP and POTD like Bee mid air.jpg the DOF isn't wide enough for the insect itself.--Chianti (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The main subject is too small and unsharp, also because the background is unattractive. --Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Background for flying insects now has to be "attractive"? Care to elaborate what you specifically mean or post the link for an example in the FPs of a flying Hymenoptera (Apidae) with an "attractive" background? Thank you.--Chianti (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Hello Chianti and welcome to the FPC, even if you have got off to a bumpy start. You sound quite upset, as do many users who come here for their first nomination. The usual way to FPC is to start at COM:QIC, that way you are eased into the hard conditions and "technical" language we use here. My first suggestion is that you start by nominating your photos for COM:QI, that way you will get tips and help along the way. As one of the "techno freaks" you seem to hate so much, I will try to answer some of your questions (I can't call myself an "equipment freak" since I have the cheapest camera of everyone here, not even a real DSLR). I have some time today, so I'll see if I can clear up a few things for you.
- All images at FPC are judged both on a technical level and an emotional. Sometimes the emotional wow for a photo is so great that it beats a poor technical level. Mostly we need both wow and technical level for an FP. POTY is voted for by all users on the wiki-project and the biggest part of those have no clue about photography, they just vote for the pretty/funny picture, so don't let that confuse you.
- What people here choose to photograph is simply what they have access to in one way or another. Seeing single bees at flowers is what most can find, going to a beehive is another thing. There might not be any hives nearby or, like me, they might not want to go near one without protective clothing. Still even if your photo is the first here of a bee at a hive, it needs to have a bit more technical quality and composition. Your photo is far from the only "first" photo that gets 'opposes' here. Many FPs are the result of days of test shooting and hundreds of photos at different light and angles, until the right one suddenly appears. I once stalked a rusty chain for three days until I got it right and got my FP.
- It is hard to know how to help you or suggest things for you since there is no EXIF data on this or your other photos. That way, I do not know at which level your photo skills are or how you photograph, but you have mentioned a few photo terms so I think you have some knowledge. Most of the work in getting an FP takes place in the editing of the photo. Do you take your photos in jpeg or raw format? That makes a huge difference if you want to make really good photos. You asked how to shoot shiny objects on a bright day, well you step down the EV on your camera, sometimes as much as -1 or -1.5 and raise it again in the post processing. That is a good trick that will keep away overexposed areas. It will also help you not to get the color in the photo desaturated by the strong light.
- In this photo, it would also have been much nicer to better see the bees at the hive opening so that it clearly shows that the bee is heading home. Now it is too much in the shade. A very "high tech" way of dealing with such things is to hold something white (like a piece of paper) and reflect a bit of light into the most shadowy part. There are also very bright objects on both sides of the hive opening and they are a bit distracting. There is no shame in toning those down in something like Photoshop.
- I have made a rough simulation of what your photo could look like with some of the things I'm talking about here. Since I don't know if you will be insulted my tampering with your photo, I have not uploaded it on Commons by just put it in my Dropbox where you can take a look at it. Here is the link. I hope that we will see your photos at QIC and later here again. New photographers with new ideas and areas to photograph are well liked. :-) You might also want to take a look at COM:PT where a lot of photo tips are collected. All the best, --Cart (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunately, it is a very nice capture but I think it would only be FP if at least some of the hive itself were in focus as well as the bee in flight. I also agree with Cart that some of the bright areas on both sides of the hive need to be toned down - if you shot in RAW, I would suggest pulling back the highlights in Photoshop. And indeed, photos at Picture of the Year are not necessarily a good guide as to what makes an FP. Colin's photo was a well-deserved winner, but when it was nominated at FPC it gathered many opposes and passed by a relatively narrow margin. FPC is very much interested in technical quality - I'd argue sometimes a little too interested, but there we are. Cmao20 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Compostion. Technical quality. Hello Chianti, I hope you found Cart's constructive comments above helpful. Please don't underestimate the community here. To accuse FPC folk of being focus-trap-artificial-background-flash-and-studio-equipment-excessive-photoshop techno guys is unwise. I look at most animal FPCs and I'm struggling to recall one photographer that fits that description! Charles (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others--Boothsift 05:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose A real Catch-22 of a photograph ... it would be ideal with just the bee and little of that distracting unsharp background, but then it would be too small for FP, and it's really hard with this sort of subject to walk that tightrope successfully. I do appreciate that you made the effort, though. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2019 at 02:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg -- Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Really good. Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --MB-one (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Though I wish there were more bottles. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 18:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Impressive use of stacking to get everything sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Podzemnik (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Perfect --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 15:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Water reflection of trees and boats on the Katsura River near Togetsukyo, Kyoto, Japan.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2019 at 10:04:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose a little too simple, something is missing Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hopefully no slab :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- very weak oppose Sorry Basile but I think I agree with Christian Ferrer here. It's pretty, and the golden-hour light is nice, but there really isn't a lot to look at except the reflections, which we see a lot of here. And I don't get anything special in terms of composition, with the symmetrical reflections not really providing much tension. If I were to shoot this scene I would have placed the boats at the bottom-right of the composition on an intersecting third. I have provided an image note on the nomination page to show what I mean. That crop would be FP to me, this perhaps not. Cmao20 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I love this current composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
"very weak" wikicode
|
---|
|
- Oppose Per the others above--Boothsift 03:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Peaceful image for me, zen, extremely relaxing -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 05:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Overall a very serene mood. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Subject very small. Trees and reflection are dominant in frame and not much wow with them (compare many other tree reflection images we have at FP, which mostly have Autumn colours). -- Colin (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- very weak support :) I opened the nom thinking I'd probably oppose or abstain, since the thumbnail version struck me as, frankly, not particularly interesting, with so much thick greenery (and its reflection) dominating the frame. Looking at the full size, the color and shapes of the subject contrasts so much with everything else that it made me want to look closer. I felt similar to when browsing the Google Maps satellite view, and you see a little flash of color or geometry in an otherwise natural landscape -- creates the feeling of having stumbled upon something. I think, actually, I would not support if it were cropped, actually, for these reasons. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2019 at 18:24:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
- Info See [1] for background. Created by Heinrich Berann - uploaded by Smallbones - nominated by MER-C -- MER-C 18:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- MER-C 18:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support, but I'd recommend withdrawing this and nominating all of the images without labels as a set. These are truly stunning. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw. I won't get around to nominating as a set until tomorrow, so feel free to nominate in my absence. MER-C 20:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It would help to mention the date this was created, as it is clearly out of date as regards the extent of the glaciers today. And there's a copyright mentioned in the EXIF. It that OK? Charles (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the painting was commissioned by the NPS, and scans of public domain images are also in the public domain. MER-C 20:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination MER-C 20:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2019 at 21:05:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info Punch card from the Leibniz-Rechenzentrum-München. For illustrative reasons, some numbers are already punched out. On punch cards, operating systems und programmes like multiplication can be saved and used in analog computers. created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Why such a humongous file for such a simple object? --Cart (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Info I uploaded a larger file so the smallest structures on the paper are visible. Featured pictures need a good resolution. But I can upload a smaller version. :) Regards, --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support High encyclopedic value. I like your straightforward, documentary approach. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The current crop is too tight. The card is cut at the top. This picture also needs margins and more space all around (like the previous version of this one). See the aspect of this image with a dark background. A description in English would also be welcome -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - A useful VI but not an interesting enough subject for FP, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the hint :). --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. I grew up with these cards and there are so many more interesting ways you can depict these objects. Head-on scans are for VI in this case. --Cart (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan and Cart--Boothsift 05:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan --GRDN711 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Panorama di Riomaggiore.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2019 at 03:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
- Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- СССР (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful and colorful. A bit noisy at full size, but full size is huge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment A little bit dark ... --XRay talk 04:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- True, but fairly representative of the actual lighting. You can see rain up in the hills on the left. --СССР (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Nice idea and worth a support but IMHO the tonemapping has entirely been overdone here – look at the dark roofs having bright seams along their edges! So it’s overprocessed, doesn’t look natural at all. Btw, there’s a badly done cloning on the sea horizon near its right end (supposedly removal of vessel). Could you upload a reworked image? --Kreuzschnabel 11:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing; partially Done: fixed the dubious patch of the sea near the horizon on the right (was actually a stitching issue). Concerning the other point you raised, I actually don't do tonemapping. I've always preferred minimal post-processing, and the only thing done here was shadow recovery. --СССР (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Honestly, I like this a lot; the light is maybe a bit flat but that's easily made up for by the interesting cityscape which has loads of wow for me. The only thing I could perhaps wish for is a bit more space at the bottom of the panorama, but if this is what you've got, it's FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support so many interesting details to discover. --MB-one (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support One would have wished for sunlight, but that might have come at the cost of detail. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2019 at 12:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
- Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Hockei (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not really getting this choice of composition, or wowed by the bridge. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not really feeling it either. Maybe it's the light.--Peulle (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Out of your pictures of the viaduct I much prefer the composition of this one, though I'm not sure I'd vote for it as it suffers from grey highlight clipping in the current version. Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others--Boothsift 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Boothsift, I cannot understand what your reason is for the FPX-template. The quality of the picture is good and the composition is a matter of taste. Also the subject. The negative reviews above are just that. So the FPX-template is in no way justified. Please remove it or give a real reason. We have a voting period that can be exhausted. I also appeal to the other users. --Hockei (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Boothsift and others, I agree with Hockei that the FPX has become too liberally used. It is intended for photos that do not meet the criteria of the guidelines and should not be used simply because a photo has got off to a bad start. If a nom gets only 'opposes' the bot will archive it early (in five day) anyway. It should not be used to simply get rid of a nom early when the photo has ok QI quality. I'm removing the template. --Cart (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose A QI yes, and I don't mind the composition (although I'd have cropped the tree on the left), but not technically there for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2019 at 05:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
- Info created by WClarke - uploaded by WClarke - nominated by WClarke -- wclarke 05:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- wclarke 05:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The trees cover up too much of the bridge IMO--Boothsift 05:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
OpposeNot bad, but QI not FP for me. A little bit noisy, and the resolution and composition aren't quite good enough to make up for that. Cmao20 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)- Cmao20: Quite frankly I disagree. The scene was very dark when I took the photo, and it’s a 30 second I shot at 400 ISO, only one stop above my camera’s native ISO 200 — considering how dark it was, the noise is very minimal for a night photograph in those conditions — it was taken on a full-frame DSLR, I’m not sure how much noise you’re expecting given these factors. Also, a note on image resolution — how big is big enough? 12 megapixel is a completely respectable size, you would be able to make a 24x16 inch print with this photograph without any problems and for web viewing, zooming in at 100% you can still great detail. Another thing about technical quality — it’s hard to deny that this image has great dynamic range, with a wide array of colors, lights and darks, yet still with no clipping anywhere. That’s far more important than negligible noise and acceptable resolution. Also, it’s a multi-layered composition, showing the river, the vegetation surrounding, and the bridge; how would you improve it? Thanks. wclarke 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- WClarke,thanks for your detailed reply and for talking about the conditions under which you took the photo. I have changed my vote to Neutral as I think an outright oppose is probably harsh.
- My point about resolution was not to suggest that 12mpx is poor resolution, it absolutely isn't, and as you say it's easily sufficient for a decent-sized print. However, at FPC we regularly see images of this kind that are 30-40 mpx, and though this image is certainly good, it's not at that level. Thus, I would argue that for an image to be seen as the 'finest Commons has to offer', if the resolution is 12mpx I would expect it to be more-or-less perfect at full-size (except for macro shots and photos with greater technical challenges, where I would be much more forgiving). As for composition, I must say I agree with Boothsift that the trees cover up too much of the bridge. I feel that the bridge itself is too far off to the left of the frame, and that too much of the picture focusses on the trees rather than the bridge - because for a picture of a bridge I'd prefer to see as much as possible of the bridge itself, if that makes sense. I'm also not sure I like the little corner of the path at the bottom-left - I'd like to see either more of the path or none at all - but that's only a minor point.
- Finally, there are a few other minor technical criticisms (which you might be able to address). In a few places I can see chromatic aberrations (especially on the tree to the left of the picture), of both the green and purple variety. There are also some slightly unusual speckles of colour (especially blue) at the bottom-right in the water; I can't think what caused them, but it should be possibly easily to clone them out. Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Almost nice, I like the long exposure and
respect the tree in front of the bridge, but the composition doesn't work in my view due to the bottom left corner, and the small trunk in the water cut at the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC) - Oppose Overprocessing evident on the tree in front of the bridge. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- weak support Probably closer to neutral, given some of the points already brought up above, but I don't mind the composition (apart from the bottom-left bit) and find that the long exposure makes for an interesting view, with nice contrast. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Wiesenknopf Blüte 6260037-PSD-PSD.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2019 at 12:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info Flower of the salad burnet stacked from 23 shots. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This is good. I'll support it once the focus-stacking is tidied up (particularly the background). Also, wouldn't it be better with the stalk vertical? Charles (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Background reworked.--Ermell (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment still very obvious focus-stackling faults Ermell. Charles (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's a problem with the crossing tentacles.--Ermell (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, in Photoshop I would use cloning tool. Charles (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Rotating and having the stalk upright would make the hanging things look like they were blowing in the wind rather than responding to gravity. --Cart (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not so. I tried it. Charles (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, the wind effect doesn't work -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- strong support Very nice motif. A veil of subdued greens provides an excellent background for the intensely red bristles, the yellow pollen-bearers, and their pure white stalks. At top resolution thousands of sharply defined pollen globules appear. My full respect if this stack was taken outside of a studio! Nevertheless, some "messy" areas appear between stalks, but this (as I know due to my own delving into this tricky photographical technique) is inevitable with such criss-crossing details, as the stalks at front partially cover up those behind and the hindmost are almost completely bereft of any processible details. Yes, an admirable state-of-the-art focus stack for such a difficult subject! --Franz van Duns (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Franz, looks quite excellent to me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Too many of those "ghosts" you get from the unsharp areas in some photos around the selected sharp areas. A higher f-number (longer dof) and consequently fewer photos would probably have solved that problem. 23 photo seems a bit like overkill to me. --Cart (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment F5 is quite high at 1/25 second and a moving object. With an image scale close to 1:1, so many frames are actually necessary.--Ermell (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 17:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nicely done. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose fascinating shot but there are too many ghost/stacking errors on the plant. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Stacking is imperfect (I empathize), but it's striking nonetheless. — Rhododendrites talk | 00:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Beautiful flower and good light, but there are many ghosts at the lower part, like white stems out of focus, so technically it looks strange. I wonder if enough frames were taken here for this focus stacking work. Also Question is there a reason why the last version was downsized from 19,6 Mpx to 15 Mpx ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- I changed the background and the aspect ratio slightly.--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes and the resolution also a little bit -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 16:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 18:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many stacking artefacts IMO, sorry --Llez (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, it needs a lot of work still. Shame. Charles (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. --Hockei (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Seven Pandas. --Ivar (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2019 at 19:51:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info Something a little different within the church-interior genre - the decorative font in the nave of Canterbury Cathedral, the mother-church of the Anglican Communion. I think this is a beautiful object, captured in extraordinary detail. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 07:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 14:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2019 at 17:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by Franz van Duns - uploaded by Franz van Duns - nominated by Franz van Duns -- Franz van Duns (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I have supplemented 2 other versions on the image page: (a) with reversed images for parallel viewing and (b) the right image of the stereo pair as an individual image. These versions are provided as follows: (a) for those who possess a stereoscopic viewer and (b) for the large group of individuals (20-40% by some assessments) who cannot combine stereo images into one composite image. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant, especially when viewed as a stereo image. It's nice to see people on Commons doing that kind of work. But it would be FP even without, for me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question -- where were these photos taken? Seven Pandas (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- According to the file page, "Dortmund, Germany. Own garden" (there's a geotag, too). — Rhododendrites talk | 23:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question Do we have a tool to facilitate viewing this on-wiki? I really appreciate the nomination, but I feel like it's hard to evaluate with just a cross-eyed method? — Rhododendrites talk | 23:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment As mentioned above I have added a separate version for parallel viewing on the image page. Alas, I do not know of any tool within the Wiki universe that would enable parallel or cross-eyed viewing. Anyone else?
Speaking for myself, I can focus on a stereo image of any size via cross-eyed viewing within seconds (even 27" full screen is no problem), but have great difficulties with parallel viewing, even with a black cardboard placed all the way from nose to screen to separate the images. My wife cannot focus on any variant of "free-floating" 3D images, only a (long gone) primitive plastic stereoscope with tiny images that she had possessed as a child did the trick. I guess we must wait for the arrival of a stereo viewer that can deal with stereo images side by side on a 27" screen. Any ideas? -- Franz van Duns (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC) - Comment A way to expierience a parallel view image in 3D is to load the image with any gallery app on any smartphone and putting the smartphone in any VRgoggles. No additional software (VR or other) is needed. Even people who normally have no 3D vision (but can see with both eyes but because of a medical condition in 2D only) will experiences the 3D effect (but only for some minutes as the vision region of the brain is not used to it, and will stop to process 3D information). Any VRgoggles will do. In germany "Euroshop" sells cardboard versions in starwars design at 1 €. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @C.Suthorn: Thank you for this vital hint! As you might have guessed by my appeal to all, I don't have access to any of the required stereo display apps and this obvious solution simply didn't occur to me at the moment of writing.
This is maybe slightly off-topic, but it is nevertheless very intensely related to the topic of "which options do I have to easily view stereo images" and I surely am not the only person who encounters this problem seeking a solution. I do own a Microsoft Lumia 950XL I purchased some years ago because of the (then) top quality take-along camera, but I download all images for further processing on to my 32 GByte RAM workhorse desktop computer and so far haven't encountered the need to install anything on my smartphone.
Perhaps a modernised and informative image on the relevant wikipedia pages "Stereoscopy" and "de:Stereoskopie" plus a short descriptive article describing how to "easily achieve stereo viewing by means of a smartphone and a simple cardboard VR goggle" would inspire those looking for such a simple solution. If someone would provide the German version I'd do the English translation - or vice versa.
P.S.: I've just surveyed some of the German online market sites, but most cardboard VR goggles won't accept the Lumia's 6.5" size without a lot of extra cutting. Well, why not, the only parts I really need seem to be the two identical lenses! -- Franz van Duns (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC) - Comment @All: First of all a great Thank You for your support!
Just one more comment as a temporary summary to this look-aside thread. Would it be of any interest to continue this subject on e.g. the talk page of "Stereoscopy" or "de:Stereoskopie" with the intent of adding modernised content?
First impression with my smartphone: unaided cross-eyed viewing works straight out of the box, albeit with a complete loss of detail. I.e., although the Lumia has exactly the same resolution as my 27" monitor (2560x1440 pixels) the perceived resolution is absolutely dismal. Haven't yet purchased a cardboard smartphone VR viewer with integrated lenses for parallel arranged stereo images; this contraption should hopefully improve my viewing experience. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)- I think it might be useful to start a page not on Wikipedia but on Commons, with the aim of explaining the different forms and different ways to view them. I have a Google Cardboard somewhere, but I don't really want to have to pull out my phone for it. I can see the cross-eyed images, but it's not a pleasurable/practical experience to use that method, which is why I asked about others. Regardless, Support. — Rhododendrites talk | 16:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- It might be a start, to replace the image of a viewmaster as icon in the parallel view template with VR goggles. I do not think, that many people know what a viewmaster is, or how it works. (and it will even show only viewmaster images, almost all of which are copyrighted and not available for commons) --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think it might be useful to start a page not on Wikipedia but on Commons, with the aim of explaining the different forms and different ways to view them. I have a Google Cardboard somewhere, but I don't really want to have to pull out my phone for it. I can see the cross-eyed images, but it's not a pleasurable/practical experience to use that method, which is why I asked about others. Regardless, Support. — Rhododendrites talk | 16:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment As mentioned above I have added a separate version for parallel viewing on the image page. Alas, I do not know of any tool within the Wiki universe that would enable parallel or cross-eyed viewing. Anyone else?
- Support - Impressive even just looking at one image and then the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 16:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 18:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2019 at 20:45:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great view and useful tags.--Peulle (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Peulle. New Zealand is such a beautiful country. Cmao20 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Peulle --GRDN711 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice panorama -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support so beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 07:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- a weak dust spot at the left side but very nice.--Ermell (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing Ermell, I've removed it together with another naughty dust spot :) --Podzemnik (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support What a view! Ahmadtalk 14:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Hockei (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2019 at 03:31:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Dramatic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wow! The waves so close below make all the difference. – Lucas 06:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support The wave! --Podzemnik (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot. Ahmadtalk 09:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Hockei (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! --Yann (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose overprocessed. The sharpness of the bird vs the blurry background looks very artificial (try to magnify the tail, it is visible here). Additionally, the processing of the first and second waves is visible too. I think it is too much (only my taste of course)...--Jebulon (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- weak support only weak as per Jebulon --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 16:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support A fine shot. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough quality (per Jebulon). And please add location category too. --A.Savin 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Btw: Is it just me, to whom the picture appears like a photoshop montage? The size of the bird is somewhat way too big in relation to the wave? --A.Savin 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- First I also thought so. But there similar photographs of the uploader, therefore I think it's not photoshoped. No evidence but a hint. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The edge of the wave looks astonishingly sharp to me. It is the same with the edges of the bird. It appears slightly artificial to mee, too. But I'm not familiar with the area, where the image was made. I would like to see the unprocessed original and then compare the two. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have discussed the photographic techniques he uses with JJ Harrison because I cannot replicate them with my equipment. He says it is because he uses a prime lens (which I don't have). He says that he does not use software to alter backgrounds - e.g. blurring. So still a mystery to me. Charles (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Enough with the bad faith. JJ Harrison is one of our most esteemed bird photographers, I can't imagine why he would resort to montage. I'd write this up as a very lucky shot combined with great photo skills unless the author himself says otherwise. Besides there is color reflection from the bird on the wave and that is very hard to photoshop. --Cart (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Who are you accusing of bad faith Cart? Charles (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not you Charles, don't worry, you seem to have an open mind about this. But if you read the comments you see that some users have expressed suspicions about this ("background looks very artificial", "I would like to see the unprocessed original", "appears like a photoshop montage", "No evidence but a hint"). I'd say that is bad faith wrt to JJ Harrison being honest about his photos. A.Savin has even emailed the photographer to obtain proof that this is real (see comment below). He is of course within his right to do so, but I think it is bad form among colleagues. This is like the time I was accused of pasting a moon just because it was too well photographed. --Cart (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. But I don't see any problem in the questioning. I too asked JJ for out-of-camera RAW during the FP nomination on English Wikipedia. There are no hard-and-fast rules here about the level of manipulation we should accept, so surely doubters have a right to ask? Charles (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, they have the "right to ask". For myself, I prefer to live by 'Assume Good Faith' with seasoned FPC-ers. But as per your comment, here is the link to the en-wiki discussion with JJ's own comments. --Cart (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Info I also had a look on the forum on Flickr with photos taken with the same big lens. They resemble this very much. This $11,000 lens make sharp birds against incredibly smooth backgrounds. --Cart (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've requested raw file per wikimail. I would convince myself it's true and also try a better post-process --A.Savin 11:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @JJ Harrison: Any response? --A.Savin 22:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support This image depicts not only the frothy wave beneath the impressive underside of this petrel, but also the crest of a wave towering in the distance. The image was thus taken in a wave trough looking steeply upwards and that explains an EXIF data item one would not normally expect for an image obviously taken above the water surface: "Altitude: 4 meters below sea level". -- Franz van Duns (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Not bad quality for an action shot, and spectacular image. I zoomed at 200% with photoshop, I'm not convinced that it is a photomontage. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 10:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support It may have been sharpened a bit more than I would have, but that doesn't ruin the image enough for me to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too unrealistic, looks like a photomontage --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 06:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family_:_Ardeidae_(Herons)
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Greatǃ--Ermell (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support perfect timing. --MB-one (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great quality as usual, and a fine moment. We have other FPs of this species, but none that I can find of it eating a fish. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great shot. Charles (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 00:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Hockei (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good catch both of you. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great shot. I don't know why, but that fish reminds me of WikiTrout! Ahmadtalk 16:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Murex ternispina 01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 06:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 07:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Didn't need to open this in full-res to know I'd vote for it, but it was a pleasure to do so regardless. Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Native Garhwali Woman In Rishikesh.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 04:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
- Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 14:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 18:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Another one with that National Geographic feel to it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Nepali hindu bride.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2019 at 10:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
- Info created by Nirmal Dulal - uploaded by Nirmal Dulal - nominated by Nirmal Dulal -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good quality, I like the composition and enjoy the red, red, red -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Nirmal Dulal, you can only have to open nominations at the same time, this is your third. If you want this re-opened you have to
{{withdraw}}
one of the other nominations. You can of course make this nomination again later. --Cart (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Cart, I withdraw this nomination. Thanks for suggestion. -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Info FPD removed and nomination re-opened. --Cart (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. It would be great with some better description on the file page. It says that she is welcoming, but who is she welcoming? What religion have these weddings. Remember that most of us don't know anything about how things are in Nepal but we like to learn. :-) We also like the location to be a bit more specific. Could you please add in what town or district this was taken. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Hindu religion. She is welcoming her future husband, most probably. ;o) In traditional Hindu weddings, the bride and the bridegroom do not go together to the ceremony. They arrive separately, each with their family. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yann: I think so too (I do know that part), but to be on the safe side, I would rather that the author told us about this in his/her own words on the file page. Btw, bride and groom arriving separately is customary at most Christian European weddings too. ;-) --Cart (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @W.carter: I added geo location and description, thanks and regards. - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Great! When you nominate a photo for FPC, make sure you tell us as much as you can about what is in the photo. That makes it easier for us "foreigners" to understand it and to use it in the right articles and settings. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice portrait. Red is the symbol of fertility in hinduism. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 16:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great one, and, per Basile, I enjoy how the picture is so dominated by one colour. Cmao20 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Red, red, red all over! Appealing contrast with dangling trinkets in green and gold. Lovely details. Her expression fully concentrated on the coming decisive moments. A worthy bride. Very compelling. Hopefully she has consented not only to her (unknown) bridegroom but also to her world-wide moment of fame within the wiki universe. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support (Very minor CAs at the jewelry at the forehead.) --XRay talk 10:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per others. Ahmadtalk 14:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support So culturally rich and informative ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose very good quality, but it lacks "wow" for me. --MB-one (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support please nominate more FPs :) — Rhododendrites talk | 18:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Paisaje en el parque nacional de Namib-Naukluft, Namibia, 2018-08-05, DD 41-47 PAN.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2019 at 13:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info Typical landscape in Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia. c/u/n by me, Poco2 13:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 13:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question Is the white/blue sky OK on this one? It may be my eyes, but it seems to vary a lot across the panorama. Charles (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support A stark, barren, beautiful panorama. Pin-sharp all the way across, and with no stitching errors I can see. Charles may be right that the sky on the left is a slightly lighter blue than on the right, but this may well be accurate to reality. Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support, but fix the dust spot above the right side of the tree on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure thing, will upload a new version tomorrow and also see if there's room for improvement regarding the sky. Of course, all frames have been taken with the same exposition. Poco2 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, I couldn't find the spot, would you be so kind and add a note? Poco2 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Poco, I'm sorry I wasn't able to address this in a timely fashion. I've done my best to label the approximate position of the dust spot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, I hope I hit it in the version I just uploaded, it was not so easy to see. Poco2 17:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Poco, I'm sorry I wasn't able to address this in a timely fashion. I've done my best to label the approximate position of the dust spot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, I couldn't find the spot, would you be so kind and add a note? Poco2 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure thing, will upload a new version tomorrow and also see if there's room for improvement regarding the sky. Of course, all frames have been taken with the same exposition. Poco2 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- You got it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 14:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support A truly unforgiving landscape ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Belated support: the ultra-high resolution of this image truly emphasises the mind-boggling bleakness of the landscape. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Peach-leaved bellflower.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 06:58:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
- Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 06:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 06:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Thanks Bootshift. Was on my list.--Ermell (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Lovely sharpness, lovely colours. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral very nice, but I can't support with small visible stacking errors. --Ivar (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2019 at 13:48:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures#People
- Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Something new. Yann (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Instructive but it lacks wow for me. I find the framing of the scene a bit unbalanced and the light too dull. Sorry, nice to see something new though. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- That said, since I liked the freshness of it, I did have a go at it to see is it could be improved to focus on the nice aspects of the photo. Would you consider this editing? If you think I'm intruding on your photo, I apologize. Cheers, --Cart (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I love the gesture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I think it's well captured, many faces are visible, with nice expressions. --Cayambe (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: lighting is far from optimal --СССР (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Would prefer a little more Wow but the image with Cart's editing does appeal. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose too ordinary for me. Charles (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support per GRDN711, I would prefer Cart's edit. Cmao20 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cart; I would add that, having lived through a couple of similar scenes I am especially unwowed by this one. Although it was nice to see someone try. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not very wowed by this --Boothsift 05:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles. While it’s a nice shot and certainly valuable for those attending, I don’t see anything really special in it. River on right background seems tilted/distorted CCW to me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 07:35:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 [discuter] 07:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Gzen92 [discuter] 07:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Good quality but the architecture doesn't interest me as much as some other pictures of subway stations we've seen here. Cmao20 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support However, I personally think it would be better if the cameras weren't there. --Boothsift 17:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support It's like a scene from the Orwel's book 1984. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A convincing case of total surveillance. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 20:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info View of Noordhoek Beach, Cape Peninsula, South Africa. c/u/n by Poco2 20:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 20:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support The unusual house on the right adds the extra interest to make this an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great shot. Is it just me or is that house actually a bit weird? Ahmadtalk 16:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 17:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 18:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support This is that really cool-looking beach on False Bay, right? Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Never mind correcting me; it's not. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Stopwatch, 1810201155, ako.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 18:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created and uploaded by Code - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 18:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 18:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent sharpness and good enough for FP as it is, but the transition between the black background and the stopwatch at the top could do with a bit of work. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wonderfully sharp throughout. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per KOH -- Eatcha (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sharp and detailed. Ahmadtalk 16:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 18:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the way it gets less clean when you look at it up close. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- strong support A carefully crafted image using a professional focus stacking tool (Helicon Focus). The result is absolutely impressive, especially the immaculate reflection of the watch face on the lower surface! -- Franz van Duns (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Mengerschwamm mit Schattenlicht 01082019 8K 001.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2019 at 08:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
- Info A menger sponge with a light source in the center of it, cursing shadows via raytracing techniques (more infos in the description), all by me created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure how I will vote on this one, but shouldn't a computer-generated image really be stored in a lossless format such as PNG rather than JPEG? Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I see, that's right. I nominate another version, thanks :). --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
File:Medieval Glassblower-1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2019 at 15:21:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created & uploaded by Ragnaroek68 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks nice, but it has been downsized and at this resolution the image doesn't impress me.--Peulle (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose And very well preserved for a medieval glassblower... Charles (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Charles, please provide a better reason for oppose. Being "well preserved" is not a valid reson. --Cart (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- as Peulle. Charles (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support A decent action shot for me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose First, the name is quite misleading as this is clearly not a medieval glassblower, but a reenactment. Like Peulle, I can see how it is downsized, a bigger resolution might appeal more. --Boothsift 05:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Rocknroll singer amk.jpg (delist), not delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2019 at 03:54:02
- Info Blurry, out of focus, bad composition, harsh contrasts, distracting lamp, awkward angle (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep --Hockei (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Wonderful image. Wondering if nominator is looking at another photo. -- Colin (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not really. Quite abominable in my view, very sincerely, per nom. This kind is different at all levels -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- The other photo is great but there is more than one way to shoot concert photography and various lighting and set conditions. The other photo was clearly taken in daylight outside. I strongly suggest, if you think this is a "bad composition" that you get yourself acquainted with some professional photographs of musicians at concerts. This is very standard composition/angle. I shall not even waste my time arguing about the other criticism you make, except to note that of course I disagree with them. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The composition is bad in my opinion because the subject is seen from an extreme angle, almost from behind. Similar problem last week, not promoted for this good reason. I'm sorry for the photographer, but honesty and diversity in the reviews help to understand flaws sometimes. There is a distracting and awkwardly cropped lamp at the top right corner, which is just not welcome in this frame aesthetically for the balance. Despite the violent light, I have good eyes and don't need to refer to professional photographs to see the focus is on the microphone, not on the face. This is more similar to a snapshot from a smartphone, we all possess today but that was not widespread at this time. The image might have been exceptional for some reason in 2007, now it has lost a lot. The hand is cut, and it would have been better to center the frame more to the bottom, for action. Quite obvious. Most of the visible parts of the face are blurry (ear, eye, chin). "I shall not even waste my time arguing about the other criticism you make, except to note that of course I disagree with them. Unwatching" Everyone is free to share and learn, of course -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a reason to delist yet--Boothsift 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Classical compo of singer on stage with good ambience. The classics seldom go out of style. --Cart (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Per Colin and Cart. -- B2Belgium (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist : certainly very atmospheric, but in terms of technical merit, it's nowhere near the standards --СССР (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, just about, because I don't see any clear reason to delist. But I don't think it's especially great and wouldn't have voted for it - I much prefer the composition of the picture of Hayley Williams that Basile links to, and I think it's a far better example of concert photography. Nevertheless I concede this is representative of the genre and not a bad photo, if not a great one. Cmao20 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- You say you wouldn't have voted for it. At least we agree on that point :-) Means you don't think it's worth the FP status, doesn't it ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mainly I just think the delist mechanism should only be used in clear-cut cases for an image that should never have passed FP in the first place, or for pictures that are technically outmoded or superceded. In my opinion this is not a great photo, but it's not so far away from the standard that I think it's worth a delist nomination being opened. Cmao20 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Examples of professional photographs : 1, 2, 3... -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Basile, for someone who enjoys arguing so much, this is a crap argument to make. Three cherry-picked examples, drawn from a subject domain of millions, with a huge variety of photographic style, not to mention musician style. Those three photos are boring and unrepresentative of their flamboyant subjects. Save us from boring photos. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, here again ? No worry. Just please save us from boring comments -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per CCCP. And *this* much of yellow is no longer atmospheric, but unpleasant. --A.Savin 12:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep Not as sharp as we'd like, maybe, but not hopelessly unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep --El Grafo (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Result: 3 delist, 9 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --A.Savin 12:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2019 at 01:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
- Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Best, Eatcha (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Sometimes these wide panos with reflection works, sometimes not. Here you got two points the eye is drawn to (boat area and the bright spot by the water on the right) and they are connected by a rather uninteresting slope. I think it would be better to crop and focus on the best part, see note. Sorry, with all the work you put into this. --Cart (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support It works well for me, the resolution is superb and it's a fun panorama to explore in full resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 17:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 18:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao. Ahmadtalk 16:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I love ultra-high resolution panoramas. -- 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2019 at 13:06:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Asilidae (Robber Flies)
- Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice detail. Cmao20 (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Front legs are really unsharp, but they're not the subject of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The background is not pleasant. Charles (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2015 -- 8894-8.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2019 at 12:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support great mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Lovely composition. Cmao20 (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Gorgeous. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 14:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Am I missing something here? I see some burnt highlights, only moderate sharpness and too much clutter, but no wow. --MB-one (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you, Tomer T, for nomination. :-) BTW: I've made some minor improvements, perspective and sharpness. --XRay talk 17:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Slovyansk Voskresenska church.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2019 at 15:27:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info Resurrection Church in Sloviansk, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine. Interesting architecture, well-captured in beautiful light. created by Balkhovitin - uploaded by Balkhovitin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support ----Ermell (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Very good in terms of quality, however it would be better if the church was more centered and larger--Boothsift 04:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- After another look, I have decided to Support this now. --Boothsift 18:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice colours. I Would not want it centered though. Charles (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support as per Charles. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support really relaxing to me, nice quality. Ahmadtalk 13:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support despite the trees being unsharp; the church isn't and for this picture, with this dusk behind it, that's all that matters. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I was a little bit concerned about the slight reduction in size (downsized/cropped?), but I really like this regardless. The light is excellent. :) --Peulle (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Ferrari-Monaco-4071021.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2019 at 21:17:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
- Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Very beautiful but is it possible to clean it up a bit? Fly on the window, oil stain on the asphalt to the right, lots of lint and smudges on the
space podcar, please. --Cart (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC) - Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, although I would support the changes Cart suggests. Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I see that have done some cleaning and it is customary to put a note on the nom when you have changed something, more people than me might be waiting for it. Anyway, I would probably have put on a few more tunes in my ear phones and done a bit more cleaning, but it is clean enough. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't appeal to me, sorry--Boothsift 05:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Has, as other photos of red cars in outdoor light often do, an area that's posterized into magenta. This can be easily fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I think that is the reflecting blue sky in a way. I tried to fix that to get closer to the typically colour therefor this brand is kown for.--Ermell (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2019 at 02:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
- Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 04:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Surreal! ;-) --A.Savin 12:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Got nothing to say. Ahmadtalk 14:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice but just another pic of the almost ubiquituous Antelope Canyon. Compared with many other photos on Commons depicting the subject, the "wow" is clearly missing. At least 5 of your photos in this series are much better and really worth a "wow".--Chianti (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I do think it has the wow-factor, and the quality is great, but I agree with Chianti that some of your other photos in the series may also deserve a nomination, especially this one. But this is a clear FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support One of those subjects you really can't go too wrong with if you set it up right. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2019 at 03:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark for me. The main subjects are these bottles, and they're all in the dark shadow, especially those of the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The perspective seems a bit off, the bottle and the candles on the table are leaning too much. The editing might also be tweaked. --Cart (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment -- When I saw at QIC I didn't notice what Cart mentions. Can support if that can be fixed. Seven Pandas (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support decided to support. Seven Pandas (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful color, beautiful composition, good sharpness -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the feedback. I corrected the perspective and enhanced the brightness. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Very very slight improvement, no much change though, concerning the light. That might be a matter of taste of course. I very rarely enjoy subjects in the darkness in general. Here these bottles are suggested, but it's hard to distinguish them really. Perhaps another angle closer to the lamp would have worked better -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk)
- Support A beautiful interior with lovely composition and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile Morin --MB-one (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 14:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support The table on the right breaks up the symmetry, but considering the circumstances this is still a very good image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I just noticed the file name on this and your other nom. Let's hope Eatcha was able to fix the glitch with the
+
sign in file names per Once again a little mishap due to "+" in a file title. Keep an eye on the closing later. To be on the safe side you should try to avoid such characters in file names. --Cart (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC) - Support --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Franz van Duns (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 20:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info all by -- СССР (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- СССР (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, no wow for me. The light is dull and the whole scene looks, well, sterile IMO. --Cart (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: thank you for the review. This was taken not too long before sunset, which is evidenced by the long shadows, when light is conventionally considered anything but dull. And I'm quite perplexed by the "sterile" comment, to be honest :-) --СССР (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- The light may appear dull but it may well just be a slightly underexposed photo similar to your other nom, which is also a bit too dark IMO. I know my artsy-fartsy language can perplex users here. In this case it looks, to me, too stark, unfriendly, like no living thing could survive there. Please compare with the more vibrant File:Government Palace - Marit Henriksson.jpg (but without the man and the bus). Then again, looking at your uploads, they are all on the dark side, so perhaps that is simply your style. There is an easy way of checking if a photo is toned down too much: Take a color sample at the points that should be totally bright with no black, like the sun glints on the clock or the dots from reflections of the sun on the street lights. In this photo those points have between 5-10% black. --Cart (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- That image has quite a few blown highlights, which I really dislike in photos. But perhaps I do make my photos a bit too dark in order to avoid that. Thank you for constructive remarks. --СССР (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: thank you for the review. This was taken not too long before sunset, which is evidenced by the long shadows, when light is conventionally considered anything but dull. And I'm quite perplexed by the "sterile" comment, to be honest :-) --СССР (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support although I do think it might be slightly underxposed. But I doubt there is any better angle to display this architecture from. Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow --Boothsift 17:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: having considered the above comments, brightened the photo somewhat. --СССР (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cart. A QI for sure but it's just a very static photo of a government building. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Fine shot but not outstanding, plus IMHO oversharpened (bright seams around dark edges at full view). --Kreuzschnabel 05:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 14:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --СССР (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
File:2019-07-20 Lennon Wall in Hong Kong book fair(2).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2019 at 15:01:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by SCP-2000 - uploaded by SCP-2000 - nominated by SCP-2000 -- SCP-2000 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- SCP-2000 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting motif, but not the most naturally wow-y, and considering that, I think that the image quality could be higher. It's not bad, and adequate for most purposes, but there's a fair amount of noise and blurriness at full-size. Cmao20 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose During a past trip to China, I visited a small village near Chongqing. Inside the restaurants, a majority of them are covered with notes. So, having seen plenty of similiar note covered walls, this does not wow me. The image quality could also improve as well --Boothsift 05:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Boothsift. One of these could make an FP: this one is not it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 14:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 19:15:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#California
- Info Silhouette of a tree with Brandt's cormorants, on a cliff above La Jolla Bay in California around sunset. I find that I really like looking at this one -- the stark silhouette, the orientation of the tree/birds towards the bright blue in the top-right, the nice sky over dark water, etc. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites talk | 19:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 19:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I would prefer to see the whole tree for this type of shot and the birds to stand out and not be obscured by branches. Charles (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special, sorry. The silhouette is cut and not really interesting. I don't find the composition successful -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There are green and red CAs along the branches --Llez (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile. --Basotxerri (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the birds are too small and 'intersected' by branches IMO. --Cart (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I can see what you might have hoping for, but it didn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites talk | 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2019 at 00:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info One World Trade Center from West Street, all by me. Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me and seemingly random perspective and cropping. Reflections of other buildings don't help there either. – Lucas 06:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sort of per Lucas, there are so many lines in the photo that could have been placed better wrt the crop and framing. --Cart (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Fairly good quality, and it has wow for me in that it's such an amazing building. But I agree with Cart that the composition isn't perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- According to FP guidelines Cmao20, I'm not sure you should be promoting an image that is "Fairly good quality" and where "the composition isn't perfect". Shouldn't that be a neutral vote? 08:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not really, it's just that to me the wow of the subject outweighs the flaws of the image. There's something sleek and modernist about it, and I enjoy that we're looking up at the building. Cmao20 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing very wowing--Boothsift 06:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Abstract-Artwork- 1330.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 04:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Computer-generated#Abstract-Artwork
- Info Uploaded/ Created Anthony Ross Studio- nominated by Eathca -- Eatcha (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I thought it was stellar explosion, but it's actually not. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment some description might help... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Emailed the author, I don't know what is it. 00 Eatcha (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose According to the category suggested, it’s not supposed to be anything else than abstract artwork :) Doesnt appeal to me though. --Kreuzschnabel 06:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, Photoshop has some cool brushes and features you can play around with. I'm not impressed. No wow for me. --Cart (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cart, a pretty pattern but not FP material for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose --Fischer.H (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 06:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 14:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 00:06:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. Winter has really hit New Zealand now so I'll have a few snowy candidates :) In this picture, you can see Craigieburn Range with Porters Ski field on the left. I quite like the weather - everything from a dull day through stormish clouds to sunny spots in the back. -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice--Boothsift 05:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A lovely panorama, it will be nice to see your other snowy candidates from NZ :) Cmao20 (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Looks like you got a lot out of your trip ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I love ultra-high resolution panoramas. By the way, the name of this mountain range in New Zealand "Craigieburn Range" is of truly Scottish origin; "Craigieburn Forest". I know. -- 19:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz van Duns (talk • contribs)
- Support Poco2 20:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 14:07:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
- Info The course of this competition runs through the nooks and crannies of the Old Town in Lysekil, so there are opportunities to photograph the runners against a fairly clean and uncluttered background. At this spot, there was also a white wall to reflect sunlight onto the "shade side" of the runners. This synced pair, probably mother and daughter, caught my attention. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cart (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good capture. Cmao20 (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too ordinary. Background distracting. Runners are not 'synced' and are not showing great running skills. Charles (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
ANU closed - no action
|
---|
|
- Oppose Not really a big wow factor for me; the image itself is fairly ordinary and I'm not seeing a remarkable event or people.--Peulle (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed not very wowy with the motion blur showing quite poor running style and the boring and distracting background, which could have been blurred a bit better at only f/2.8 instead of f/6.3. They are both facing you and your camera, that's good! --Granada (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for dropping by Granada and thanks for the tips. I'm no way near as good at this as you, but learning and testing. The reason I dared nominate this, was that there are very few photos of women runners of good resolution and I thought that might tip the scale in favor of this. You never know. --Cart (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Cockpit Ovali 1957.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2019 at 08:48:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
- Info all by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Not perfect (a little bit of noise in the shadows) but it's a good composition with an evocative, retro vibe. Cmao20 (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't really appeal to me--Boothsift 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Different and simple. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice car and idea but the composition doesn’t work for me, sorry. I’d prefer a higher aiming point to get the full hood and maybe the horizon into the frame as well. The interior floor is relatively uninteresting. Visible noise reduction artifacts at relatively small image size. --Kreuzschnabel 09:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Sphinx moth (Adhemarius gannascus).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 09:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info Quite a large moth with a wingspan of about 10cm. It doesn't bite. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good quality as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Waterfalls, Oghuz ( 1090526).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2019 at 12:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info all by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- MB-one (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not an exceptional waterfall for FP. -- Colin (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose +1. --Peulle (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately I agree with Colin. It's a good shot, but waterfall photos are really a dime-a-dozen and it doesn't quite stand out for me. Also there is a bit of blue CA near the highlights at the top. Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others--Boothsift 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 14:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 16:23:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
- Info Interior of the parish church (Christ the King Church) in Mallnitz, Carinthia, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Not my kind of architecture, but such amazing resolution and image quality! Cmao20 (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I must say that "wow", I suppose. Great resolution, and I personally like the architecture. Ahmadtalk 18:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The resolution is quite epic and yet it stays so sharp at 100%. <sarcasm>I was hoping to find at least one stitiching error but what a disappointment after a few minutes when I didn't find any!</sarcasm>. Good job Uoaei1 :) --Podzemnik (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
WeakSupport. My one pet peeve is that it is not exactly symmetrical. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: I was also struggling with this, until I realized that the floor plan of the church is an irregular pentagon (visible e.g. at Google Maps) --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- In that case, I take back the "weak" - it's the best possible image that could have been obtained in these circumstances. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: I was also struggling with this, until I realized that the floor plan of the church is an irregular pentagon (visible e.g. at Google Maps) --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support And the windows looks like windows not like paintings! (as often seen here) --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per praise above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Berthold nailed it. --Cart (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very useful image at very high quality. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- very strong support If ever a perfect image, this is it! It makes perfect use of panorama stitching to capture the fabulous interior of this church. Astounding resolution: just read the text beneath the candles "EINE OPFERKERZE KOSTET 70 EURO CENT", i.e. "70 Euro cents for each devotional candle". And to top all, the stained glass windows (surely by HDR technique?) are simply stunning. BRAVO! -- 19:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 06:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 14:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 04:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created and uploaded by Mohamed Hozyen Ahmed, nominated by Yann (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice light and composition. Might be sharper, but that's the best picture of street football we have. -- Yann (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support but please correct cw tilt and maybe also think of a better file name after closing of nom --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK, rotated. I will rename the file. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Claus 07:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment shame that 1/320 sec. doesn't freeze the motion. Charles (talk)
- These boys are running fast. ;o) Yann (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment See suggested crop. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- That would be a different picture. Actually I like that the ball is at the focus point (third). That's where is the action. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Yann: But with the crop it's just the five guys and the ball—none of that distracting stuff at right or the wasted space on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, What you call "distracting stuff", I call them "spectators" as they are watching the boys, and what you call "wasted space", I call it "necessary head room". You don't need to ping me. I follow my nominations. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Yann: But with the crop it's just the five guys and the ball—none of that distracting stuff at right or the wasted space on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support – I just do like it. The scene itself as well as the lighting are great, compensating for small size and visible resharpening. I’d prefer the suggested crop too (a bit wider on the right to get more of the guy’s cast shadow) but that would make it even smaller --Kreuzschnabel 06:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support great photo, but the people suggesting cropping out the two boys watching are obviously not capable of getting the idea of the image (spectators as "distracting stuff" in football, really?). A pity. If you want to crop, then only the bottom.--Chianti (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral The sharpening halos are quite obvious, that should be fixed, otherwise different and interesting --Poco2 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support though I would recommend a 16:9 crop to remove some of the bottom. The blur is fine. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Heinrich Berann NPS Panoramas, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 14:10:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Denali National Park (1994)
-
North Cascades National Park (1987)
-
Yellowstone National Park (1991)
-
Yosemite National Park (1989)
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
- Info These four paintings were commissioned by the National Park Service and published between 1987 and 1994. See [2] for context. Was recommended to nominate all as a set, so here we are. Created by Heinrich Berann - uploaded by Smallbones - nominated by MER-C -- MER-C 14:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- MER-C 14:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support It's even more fun to look at when you've been at some of these places… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful paintings. Cmao20 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support North Cascades painting is a tiny bit less majestic than others but that's just because the other paintings are too majestic :) I've checked list of Berann's panoramas and yes, he's created 4 panorama paintings of the US national parks so the set nomination makes sense to me. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Request Could you please add the year they were made/publish and/or other data in the description on the file pages. The info written here will be archived in about nine days and become all but invisible the general public. The file pages on the other hand is where people go for information. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Cart I've fixed that. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! --Cart (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very crisp.--Peulle (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support love these. — Rhododendrites talk | 02:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support But concerning Yosemite NP at the left: are there lakes at the top of the hills and at the slopes? --Llez (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, now that I've added {{LargeImage}} to all the pages. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 12:31:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info A massive peaceful protest against illegal disqualification of most popular nonparliamentary opposition candidates running for Moscow legislative council was violently dispersed by Russian authorities. Сreated by Ilya Varlamov - uploaded by Ilya Varlamov - nominated by Kaganer -- Kaganer (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Kaganer (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support A great picture IMHO, may even become iconic in the future. Ain92 (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Firstly, the filename is not NPOV. Please just use the naming as for other files in this sequence. The faces of the police are not clearly visible and one main police office is clumsily adjusting his helmet. The crowd behind, taking photos on their phones, rather weakens the photo. The photo File:Moscow (2019-07-27), photo by Ilya Varlamov DSC 2551.jpg is a better shot here, with the young man's face clearly visible and the police officers with batons raised ready to strike. I don't, however, think either are at FP level. As for iconic, well this is iconic. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Filename changing was reverted. --Kaganer (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this is my mistake. Should be nominated File:Moscow (2019-07-27), photo by Ilya Varlamov DSC 2551.jpg. --Kaganer (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. This is just too cluttered, no clear message to me. --Kreuzschnabel 13:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin--Boothsift 18:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Oppose per above - a very valuable capture, but the message doesn't quite shine through. Cmao20 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with others, but also agree that File:Moscow (2019-07-27), photo by Ilya Varlamov DSC 2551.jpg is an interesting alternative. It would need some fixing-up (brightening, a little perspective correction, etc.) but there's a version of that I could see supporting. In my experience these crowd shots don't fare particularly well at FPC, though. — Rhododendrites talk | 21:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose and suggest it's time to withdraw nomination as it's unlikely to overcome all these opposes and since there's more support than the nominator's, we can't use {{FPX}}. Really, I can't quite tell what's going on here, recent newsworthy event notwithstanding, and it isn't visually striking enough to overcome that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 14:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 00:17:04 (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) 00:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Basile, I was about to support but something about this image gave me déja vu. It turns out I was remembering that you had already nominated this photo, which passed very deservedly and is in my view superior to this one - the expression of the front teenager is better, and the picture is much more dramatic because of the splash of water and the IMO superior composition. (Before someone points it out, I know they aren't exactly the same kids, but the subjects of the two photos are still very similar.) So I think that one is your FP of this motif, and this is a good image but just a QI in comparison. Cmao20 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- These facial expressions are very particular, and compared to the other picture all the 3 people are visible. I love the way they are clinging to each other. Same sport but different composition and different riders. Compare this and this, this and this : they're all FP with much more similarities -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- True, but honestly I wouldn't supported the images in the pairs you quote above becoming FP either. They're just too similar to me. It's by the same principle, I think, that both of us were hesitant to support this since this was already featured. Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Very good example, and this is certainly subjective, like that one which appears too similar to this in my view. I don't expect to make you change your mind, but as you seem embarrassed by my nomination ("Sorry Basile, I was about to support"...) I feel obliged to defend the initiative. Not to get your support, but to say this is not redundant in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a social media snapshot with a DSLR: "Three teenagers on a jetski". There's nothing photographically excellent about this centred composition and nothing excellent about the subject either. FP should be at least one of those. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Image:Two kids discovering the fascinating nature.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2019 at 21:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
- Info This image was taken in Italy with my two kids at the age of 3 and 6 years - created by Marc-Lautenbacher - uploaded by Marc-Lautenbacher - nominated by Marc-Lautenbacher -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Insufficient quality, nothing featurable (no wow). Next time please fix your nomination (category etc.) before starting. --A.Savin 21:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: A nice and cute photo but unfortunately the quality is below what is expected of a Featured Picture. Please nominate your photos at COM:QIC first for a pre-evaluation. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Geometric design rhodian plate.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 05:17:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created by and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 05:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 05:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Fascinating object and a deserved QI, but personally I don't think the detail preserved at full-res is sufficient for FP, particularly seeing the resolution isn't extremely high. Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Boothsift 17:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for nomination, Boothsift. It is a nice and fascinating object for sure, and a good historical document, but I agree with opposers. Due to the conditions (museum, no flash, glass...) it not at the FP level.--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos.jpg (delist), not delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 19:30:29
- Info The hoodoos aren't very sharp (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Boothsift 19:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist I don't think this can realistically claim anymore to be one of the finest images on Commons given the lack of sharpness and (for me, at least) an average rather than great composition. I would have voted keep were it not for the presence of at least two other FPs, that, while they would also not pass today because of low resolution, show the hoodoo structures much more clearly, with better composition and sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist --El Grafo (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per others.--Vulphere 14:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --A.Savin 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Peaks between Hukere Stream and Shift Creek valley, Nelson Lakes National Park, New Zealand.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2019 at 21:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. These are no name peaks in Nelson Lakes National Park during the sunset. I quite like different colours of snow and unusual light. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question why is this stuff about South Africa showing up? Seven Pandas (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Seven Pandas It wasn't mine, A.Savin has fixed that. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful light! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support All is in this yellow stripe -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The yellow stripe is really astounding and makes this image special --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Here's another one from NZ! Perfect lighting. Ahmadtalk 13:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice idea. Cmao20 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, although I would prefer a wider crop at the bottom --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 06:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support This is pretty cool Poco2 14:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I can practically see my breath as I look on this scene ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per PantheraLeo1359531 --Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Wandering spider (Cupiennius getazi) with female katydid prey (Tettigoniidae sp.).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2019 at 08:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
- Info These are large spiders with a nasty bite (I'm told), so the 100-400mm lens was definitely safer than trying the macro. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Really creepy. --Cart (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, did you spot the thread supporting his body weight? Charles (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it is visible at thumb. --Cart (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 17:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support What a destiny, I really feel sorry for her. Ahmadtalk 18:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support: sure has a lot of morbid wow --СССР (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Is that really stacked? Therefore the picture is quite blurred. I also find the patterns on the black area at the bottom right disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is stacked with just two hand-held images Ermell, but properly disclosed. New version uploaded. Charles (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Of the spider is so much out of focus. --Hockei (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Like we're seeing something we shouldn't be. Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The photo makes me feel kind of uneasy - that's the sign that it's good I guess :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture, no doubt, but if the eye of the cricket or the eye of the spider were sharp, it would be perfect.--Ermell (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- weak support Yes, this image captures the decisive Darwinian moment. Yes, a difficult shot. These two facts just suffice to outweigh the lacking sharpness (per Ermell) of much of the image. -- Franz van Duns (talk)
File:Golden-eyed tree frog (Agalychnis annae) 3.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2019 at 16:25:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Info This photo was taken shortly after this one of it wondering what to do, then this one of it reaching up. I had thought of nominating them as a set. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. A set might work too, but I think this is the best of the three. Cmao20 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- The third one is clearly not working as FP, unfortunately, too blurry, otherwise that would be the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose That one is better. The angle is more appealing, the composition better balanced, the frog more visible -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Should I offer it (or the set) as an alternative Basile Morin or wait and see what others think? Charles (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Up to you, but as far as I know alternatives are valid for slight changes only (like crops or minor parts deleted). This would be a complete different picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see then. Charles (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, and I would also support the set, if that were offered. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Basile--Boothsift 05:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too busy Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I'll nominate the other one. Charles (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
File:JarrahFence gobeirne.jpg (delist), delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2019 at 17:28:24
- Info Not very sharp nor interesting. The flower in the picture is a bird of paradise (Strelitzia) and like wooden fences, they are fairly common. We have better pictures of picket fences with better compositions. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Boothsift 17:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist Was made an FP in 2005, but is no longer one in 2019, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist Nice idea but bad crop, and by no means outstanding. --Kreuzschnabel 21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep We really need to stop this, please Boothsift, find another thing to do. This passed happily as an FP and has not deteriorated, nor is FP chock full of superior alternatives. I really really really do not think delist is simply another chance for you to spin the roulette wheel of whatever the random audience of the day finds "interesting". That you personally disagree with the original reviewers is not a reason to delist. Why do we keep seeing "not very sharp" spurious delist rationales? Go look up "plane of focus". This is just optics: some bits are sharp and some are not. Not every picture on Commons is a boring "passport identification photo" for the top-right of a Wikipedia article or needs to be focus stacked from 26 images. The fact that the plant or this fence is, in your opinion, "fairly common" isn't relevant. There are lots of fence designs and this one certainly isn't common where I live. Apparently it is typical of Western Australia, made of Jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and is a picket fence -- and is illustrative enough to be used in all three articles and on 27 different Wikipedias. As I mentioned in a previous nomination, any fool can find faults with an image if they are so inclined. And anyone can support/delist "per nom" without mental or emotional effort. It is even easier when the nominator isn't around and you don't even take the courtesy to inform them of the delist. It takes a bit of artistic confidence to explain why an image is appealing, and this is clearly a good illustration of a Australian Jarrah Picket fence. Selecting old FPs for reviewing once again is imo a dumb way to spend your time on earth, and is a waste of our time as reviewers. Move on. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment While I like your point about how this is a good illustration of this type of fence, I cannot agree with your final point. Just as adding new FPs is what we do here, we should also review existing FPs from time to time. As the Guidelines point out, "The purpose of featured picture status is to recognize that an image is currently among the most valuable images—the top fraction of a percent. As overall image quality improves, some images will be delisted." Therefore we need an active process of looking at the old images again; it's not time wasted, it's what this place is for. Some images will be delisted while others will be kept as the Community votes on it.--Peulle (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep absolutely per Colin. This delisting spree should end, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delist On the one hand, I don't find mass campaigns on delisting useful -- perhaps we should limit the number of active delist nominations per user too, just like we have the 2 FP nominations limit. On the other hand, what do I see on this picture? A wooden fence that is rather boring (if not to say ugly), and a plant behind it, that is not prominently visible. Really nothing eye-catching here and I doubt that I would have supported this picture even back in 2005. --A.Savin 11:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Peulle, etc, I'll offer two ideas:
- Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Repeat this internally every time you justify something is allowed/permitted/described by "the rules". We had very few and infrequent delists of this sort until recently. What has changed isn't the rules, but a behaviour by a few nominators. Perhaps we'll need to change the rules to stop this behaviour, but it would be easier if it just stopped by itself.
- Why wasn't I consulted? "This image is a featured picture, and I wasn't consulted, and now that I look at it, I don't think it is all that great. I want my opinion to be heard and count. Look, I can press this [Delist] button and the Internet will get to hear my views on it. I have a voice that will be heard!" This is the question that the author of that linked article claims the Internet provides an answer for [which doesn't make it good, it just is]. We need to recognise that most people here today were not reviewing back then. You have a different opinion than them. So what? It is not, in the grand scheme of things, important that your and my opinions today influence the entire body of work we call "Featured Pictures". Some of it was decided by other people. Deal with it. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, I actually have a lot of sympathy with what you’re saying, it does seem to be a waste of time for the community to spend so much energy assessing old images rather than focussing on reviewing high-quality content being produced today. That said, Boothsift opened the review, and I agree with A. Savin that I probably wouldn’t have supported this picture even in 2005. But I don’t think I fit into your category of people who are voting to delist images ‘per nom’ without putting in any effort, and in fact I’ve strongly defended at least two images recently against what I saw as unfair delist requests even though they probably wouldn’t be promoted today. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cmao20, my point about "anyone can support/delist "per nom" without mental or emotional effort" doesn't of course mean that any one such vote did not involve effort. Some people put a lot of investigation and effort into their support votes at FPC but we know that it doesn't require any effort to vote support. And a "per nom" rationale also doesn't require any effort. Similarly for a delist, then the default "no brain required" vote is to agree to delist. You don't have to justify it with any rationale of your own. That's what makes these so harmful and such a timesink for anyone who does want to take the time. And it also says to the voters of the first nomination that those guys really were wasting their time. They clearly should have waited for more intelligent and gifted reviewers to turn up ;-). -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: I find it ironic that you're doing the same thing you're complaining about - if someone is of the opinion that some images should be tested for delisting, why are their opinions worth less than yours? Just because you're carpet bombing the discussion with bold text, that doesn't necessarily mean you're in the right. The nominations are following the guidelines and so far, it's not like all the noms have been dismissed - some have been supported and others rejected. So in the spirit of "dealing with it": if you don't agree with their nominations, either refrain from voting on them or (better) utter your opinion in order for it to carry the day. If the community agrees with your points, your view will prevail.--Peulle (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ha ha I probably did get carried away with the bold. I'm really not doing the same thing. What we are doing now is having a discussion, and you can write more or fewer words if you want while this page is open. The community have (and had) the opportunity to agree and disagree while the nomination is (was) open. But once the nomination is closed, why should it be re-opened? One can make an argument that an image, in its category, is simply outclassed now. But that's not Boothsift's argument. He doesn't like the picture. He doesn't find it interesting. He didn't get the chance to vote last time and wants one now. I don't think that is a reasonable or respectful thing to do. It is quite disrespectful to those nine people who supported it the first time, and doing this in secret without alerting the photographer, is rather disrespectful to them. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why should it be re-opened? To satisfy the point made in the guidelines, of course, what else? It says that "As overall image quality improves, some images will be delisted". That means we should reexamine images from time to time. While I would agree with you that it would be against the intentions of the guidelines to open a delist nomination shortly after an FP nomination concluded, this image was promoted in 2005! Surely there is a chance that in the last 14 years, overall image quality has improved to the point at which this is no longer an FP. Sorry bub, you're losing this debate. And the vote, it seems.--Peulle (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist As a special exception. Anyway, this plenty delisting thing should be stopped. --Hockei (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: I sincerely apologize for opening this nomination as I wasted your time and for being dumb. Thank you for attacking me, rather than reasonably justifying your opinion. There is absolutely no need to go that far and if you don't like delist nominations, then we can have a vote to get rid of them. Do you think I would care? I said it before, I'm not here to nominate every single Featured Picture in existence to be delisted and I have voted "Keep" for quite a few. I listened to your opinions and withdrew a nomination. Now please keep calm and let me decide what I want to do with my own life. I have nothing against fences, but I don't like this picture. Therefore, I nominated it. Not because I don't like this type of fence nor birds of paradise, but because I found this picture uninteresting. In most of the original nominations, they barely passed anyways. So I don't what you're trying to convey here other than you hate people who open delist nominations like me and Tomer and you think the guidelines are a waste of time --Boothsift 17:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Boothsift, there have been many complaints about the recent delists, and there is an open discussion at Talk FPC. You have chosen to ignore or not participate and carry on nominating delists (10 in the last month). Be careful to read carefully in case you make false claims like "attacking me". I didn't call you dumb. I said you were doing a dumb thing, and something that requires no intelligence, skill, effort or consideration of others to do. Your argument "In most of the original nominations, they barely passed anyways." is simply untrue. In many of your delists there was strong and enthusiastic support, and remember that FPC had lower numbers of participants in the past and thresholds were different. There are hundreds of FPs that "barely passed". They are still FPs. Look at your argument now: "I don't like this picture" and "because I found this picture uninteresting". So this isn't because Commons now has so many excellent photos of Western Australian Jarrah Picket Fences that this old one is an embarrassment, but because you weren't consulted the first time, and so you want the nomination reopened so you can be consulted now. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: Would it be better if I mentioned that this is not the only picture of a picket fence we have here? For example, while the composition may be lacking, but the fence in File:Richmond 17.jpg is better. Same with File:Queanbeyan Museum (2).jpg. Also, if you want me to, I'll notify everybody who voted in the original nomination: User:Halibutt(who unfortunately passed away) User:Gobeirne, User:Get It, User:Norro, User:Rüdiger Wölk, User:Tbc, User:Gmaxwell, User: David.Monniaux, User:Fabien1309, User:LoopZilla, User:Nojhan,User:Piotrus, User:Godewind, and User:Shizhao. In addition, I will now participate in your discussion. However, what I can see from your reactions and posts is that you are quite hesistant to make changes. And thank you very much for making inferences about my actions--Boothsift 20:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This does not seem to be a clear cut delist, but quite a number of recent delist requests have not been contentious. These delist requests are valid. I don't think that the rationale of 'Not very sharp nor interesting. The flower in the picture is a bird of paradise (Strelitzia) and like wooden fences, they are fairly common' is valid. Nor do I think that Colin should accuse Boothsift of 'doing a dumb thing'. Charles (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Colin's hostile comments are completely unacceptable. This nomination is perfectly fine, respecting the guidelines, and it has obvious reasons to delist. Colin is "carpet bombing the discussion", yes. Once again. Boothsift feels attacked, and my impression is the same, absolutely. Colin wants to change the rules and imposes his view to everyone. Because there's no consensus now on the side discussion, this user chooses the disrupting way, polluting a fair candidate and targeting a honest nominator. Now everyone is wasting time. Scandalous -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Clear delist Very awkward composition. Strange angle. Uninteresting image : boring subject. Cut flowers. Ugly right side. Looks cluttered. Harsh contrasts. Certainly a mistake from the past. Great to see this nomination here. Good find -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per A. Savin. We can and probably should discuss the merits/advisability of these housecleaning campaigns, and maybe it's time to have a separate review page, but again that's not an issue within the scope of the instant discussion.
As to the picture itself, let's all hold to the de novo standard we should be reviewing these by: if this was a first-time nomination, would it pass? And for me this would be a pretty quick oppose. Even taking into consideration that a picture like this that has not been focus-stacked is going to have a largely unsharp background, as a pure composition my response is not "Wow!" It's "so what?" Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per Basile. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Result: 9 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 20:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2019 at 22:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments_and_memorials
- Info all by me. Think I’ll give it a try. It took some persuasion effort to get the clouds arranged that dramatic way around Germania, but eventually, they did ;) -- Kreuzschnabel 22:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Kreuzschnabel 22:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Very nice but needs a perspective correction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Technically, there's no distortion at all - just optics doing its job ;-) ... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I am fully aware there is considerable keystone distortion from looking upward relatively steeply to a high monument at short distance. There is no way to step further away (except flying a drone over the steep vineyard in my back). Correcting the keystone would distort the monument itself considerably, so I chose to leave it that way and keep the "upward" impression. --Kreuzschnabel 09:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support In this situation I think a perspective correction would do more harm than good. Cmao20 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Rocky Masum (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Wow is limited, perspective correction (at least some, would help) and the light is so harsh that some areas of the statue are just black and the shadow of the writing below it makes it difficult to read it Poco2 14:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- weak support I agree the lighting is pretty harsh. If this was a close up of the statue, then that would matter more and File:Niederwalddenkmal, Rüdesheim am Rhein, 140726, ako.jpg is better. But this is a photo of the steps and a tourist attraction on a sunny day so just about works. I agree with others that a full perspective "correction" is just wrong: the viewpoint is the base of the stairs looking up. This isn't an architects plan and we should not expect all photos to look like one. Poco does make a valid point that one doesn't need to do a full perspective correction, and sometimes that helps. But here, I think the sloping verticals tilting towards Germania, and emphasising perspective towards a important figure is a classic style. -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 16:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info The interior of the Basilica of Saint Clotilde in Paris, France. Best known for its imposing twin spires, this neo-Gothic church is one of the largest in Paris, and was constructed in the mid nineteenth century. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support A wonderful image! No mention of stitching and no stitching artefacts visible. If this consists of one single image, then even a Canon 5DS (sensor size: 8688 x 5792) would not suffice; was it a medium format sensor? The pillars have obviously been vertically rectified, thus leading to distortions at the very top of the image. But all fully within acceptable photographical limits. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion for Set-nomination by Paris 16
|
---|
Please note, if you comment on this, do not use the vote templates since they will be counted in the normal nom.
|
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 14:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Centre de données massives ULaval 02.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 21:17:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info all by -- Cephas (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cephas (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really wowed by this, sorry. Also insufficient DOF, causing the distant edges to be unsharp (I don't think it's a lens problem because the foreground corners are sharp). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It's overall a good photograph, but not in my view an interesting building. It looks like a fairly nondescript modernist new-build construction, with nothing to set it apart from anything else. Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per King of Hearts. --Cart (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per King and Cart. I think the photographer saw an interesting abstraction, but it does not come through in this image. And in addition to the unsharpness King notes, some perspective correction would also be helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per KOH, nothing really special --Boothsift 05:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per KoH.--Vulphere 08:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 12:10:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
- Info created & uploaded by Alexandr frolov - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice, sharp photo. Cmao20 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Yes nice and sharp, but is it a little underexposed and tilted? Charles (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 20:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support tilted (an impression at least, although it's not water). Otherwise excellent -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Australia has the largest population of wild camels, but Mongolia is not somewhere where I would expect camels. --Boothsift 05:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I would have processed this one a bit differently, but it's still a good shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Would have considered slightly tighter cropping but this is an excellent image. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2019 at 07:13:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created by Senthiaathavan - uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by A-wiki-guest-user -- A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry but it doesn't work for me; the resolution is quite low and we can't really see too much of the subject - it should be zoomed out, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I know that the resolution is low but the power of the photo is so strong for me that it totally makes up for a few megapixels. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Just not sharp enough and the lighting isn't great (nor the size). And is baby the correct description? Looks a few months old. Charles (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Podzemnik. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support Very much unusual for Commons, superb lights and motif, resolution is irrelevant. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Out there you just try to keep up with the animals and get as much of them as possible in focus? I don't think so. Charles (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've deleted my thoughts about the photo since there is always a danger someone will misunderstand when you use a conversational tone. --Cart (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was no misunderstanding. Charles (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Podzemnik--Ermell (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support The resolution isn't high, but I don't really mind, this is a unique capture and we should consider ourselves lucky to have it on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I already very much liked this other work of the photographer, despite certain technical shortcomings. The same applies here. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Cmao--Boothsift 04:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 --Aristeas (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support because photography is more than taking the passport photo of an animal for the top right of Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 16:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
- Info Way through the dunes of Amrum to the beach. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, but where is the fog mentioned in the image title? --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nebel (fog) is also the name of "a municipality on the island of Amrum" in Germany. Please check out the categories. --Cart (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Normally, this would be an example of a leading line that leads nowhere, but the people in the image have really solidified the strength of the composition, helping to give it a sense of purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per KOH. Cmao20 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Love that sharpness! Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Nice composition but I would have preferred the hikers away -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 16:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
- Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 20:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I'd say better than the previous one. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Much better. Why was the previous one nominated first? If nominated second, would it have got FP? Charles (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I submitted this one to the Photo Challenge. To avoid drawing additional attention and potentially biasing the results, I do not nominate photos that I've submitted to PC for FP during the voting period. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Patriccck (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Famberhorst (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Ophrys insectifera - Niitvälja2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 14:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
- Info created - uploaded by Ivar Leidus - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Beautiful flower, but not sharp everywhere.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Stazione ferroviaria di Riomaggiore1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 14:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
- Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- СССР (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose There is CA just about everywhere in the photo, the light and post-processing could be better. Sorry, but it has the appearance of an old hand-colored postcard. --Cart (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Beautiful scenery, but Cart is right about the CA, and additionally the whole image looks very flat, as if the shadows have been lifted too much leaving no real areas of proper black. It unfortunately reminds me a bit of the sorts of images the very first HDR software used to produce, which often looked quite unrealistic. Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done: reduced CAs, improved contrast. --СССР (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others--Boothsift 05:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 08:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Chloris chloris (profile).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 05:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created by and uploaded by Tadaa3x - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 05:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 05:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Hammer! -- -donald- (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This is a male. It is a much better picture than the existing FP, so should be a delist and replace shouldn't it? Charles (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Why delist? This is NOT a VI (where only one per scope is allowed), in FP you can have more than one of the same theme. --Llez (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Because the existing FP is blurred. Charles (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support but I agree with Charles that a delist and replace might be appropriate here. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the correct procedure, as the images are too dissimilar. I think treating them seperately is better; vote on this one and then setting up a delist vote on the other one.--Peulle (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Charles, Cmao20, you are confusing Commons for Wikipedia. Commons "delist-and-replace" is really just for artworks or a reprocessing of a previous photo. The rules say: "it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Cmao20 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- You may be right, but I don't think you've read the guidelines carefully enough Colin. That's not how I read the guidelines. They say "for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote... Delist and Replace is one of the two options. Charles (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Charles read it again. The two sections are on "delist" (the controversial and until recently rarely used practice of demoting an image in isolation) and "delist and replace" (the routine practice of replacing an FP of an artwork or where a photograph has been reprocessed). For each of the two sections, the paragraph ends with "For these, vote:" or "For these nominations, vote:" to indicate which voting templates are valid. The "these" in the second paragraph is clearly referring to valid "delist and replace nominations". It would make no sense for it to refer to nominations where delist and replace "is not intended". Above you only quote part of the text. The full text includes the valid cases for such a nomination. So the TL;DR is that we don't ever do delist and replace just because someone has taken a better picture of a certain bird. -- Colin (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support no delist and replace... Tomer T (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support better than existing FP. Charles (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 00:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support More great work from Japan. Clear FP - beautiful architecture, dramatic mood, flawless quality. Cmao20 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A bit of a (sharpening?) halo on the top of the shrine but already FP to me. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support a bit tight, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent sharpness. --Peulle (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Peulle: Lens and sensor provide an astonishing level of detail and colour, thus enhancing the large areas overly decorated with impressive golden engravings. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Better than a sunny day where the gold could have glare and certain parts would be in shadow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and you're grateful sometimes when your day is not completely lost under such an unfortunate weather :-) Basile Morin (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Hvannhagi 9.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 08:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. Will this be our first FP from the Faroe Islands? Looking through the FP categories I can't find a single other one. Cmao20 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The first place I visited before Poco a poco? I have plenty of good pictures from my resent trip...should just find some time to upload them. :) —kallerna (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The kind of cliffs I want to fly off. :) --Peulle (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Definitely worthy of Featured Picture status. I especially admire the curved rows of wavelets on the lake surface and the distant island, cliffs far away in the blue ... -- Franz van Duns (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Franz. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Hockei (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 06:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
- Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question Very nice! Might this be tilted? Most of the image is leaning to the left... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- It does appear that way, but if you compare the verticals (e.g. trees/hoodoos in the background) they are straight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support great colors Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Hockei (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Hayden Valley Yellowstone River 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2019 at 22:23:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_States_of_America>
- Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Seven Pandas -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me, sorry; just looks like a standard well-done landscape with a river. Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel.--Peulle (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice scene, but nothing special really, and there are technical drawbacks – sharpness is below average, there’s noise, and quite a few dust spots visible in the sky. --Kreuzschnabel 21:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Seven Pandas (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
File:2019 - НПП Подільські Товтри - 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 18:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support it gives very good autumn mood. --Ivar (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Very hazy, dull light, washed out colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The haze is what makes it magical. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose If the background was blurred from the haze and not out of focus that would be o.k. The sharp foreground is quite uninteresting.--Ermell (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ermell. Especially the foreground is too saturated with black IMO and it makes the scene depressing. --Cart (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Weak supportI'm not sure whether I like the haze or not, but overall the composition works for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose after a second look. The blurry background is not that interesting, and there are some strange line-shaped artefacts in the centre of the picture. I've put a note about them. I thought they were ripples in the water at first, but they seem too linear for that. I'm also fairly sure this has been downsized as the Canon 5D Mark II can produce 21 mpx images and this is only around 60% that size. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ermell.--Vulphere 14:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose With different lighting, maybe, but this is just too harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others --Boothsift 06:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2019 at 02:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Just great. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Classic California. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but for me, I'd have liked the car to be the main subject. Here it's split between the car and the house in the background. I also feel like the car is tilted somewhat.--Peulle (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I love that the house has the inverted colors of the car. Well matched. --Cart (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The perspective looks too forced to me, I would have stepped back and used a higher focal distance. Poco2 09:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support as per Cart. Yann (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Poco.--Ermell (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support It has California written all over it. I don't mind both the car and the house being the subject because I find they have the same light, airy, Californian-summer vibe, where you can imagine the beaches and the palm trees, and so they complement each other well to me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Poco.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Cart --Llez (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As others, the POV, perspective. Charles (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic support per Cmao. Looking at it I can almost hear that flanged clean-tone arpeggio that opens Van Halen's "Hear About it Later" Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A bit tight crop at the left of the house but overall nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 06:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2019 at 07:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. The image shows Maniniaro/Angelus Peak in the Nelson Lakes National Park. I like the light and the dramatic clouds. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Superb. Cmao20 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support though would prefer a touch brighter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts Could do. I've slightly brightened it up.--Podzemnik (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice scene to look at on a humid summer afternoon. What are those posts? Trail markers? I see what looks like footprints following them ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case Perhaps you could send some of those hot sunny picutres to FPC? It's really cold down here right now. The posts mark Cedric Route tha we followed. There were a couple of guys ahead of us who followed the same route so I reckon that the steps were from them. As we were climbing up, their steps gradually disappeared as the snow and the wind took care of them. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
File:San Francisco Peaks - Bonito Park.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2019 at 12:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Arizona
- Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- СССР (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Beautiful, but I wish the vertical resolution were higher. Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't feel like this is one of our best panoramas, to be honest. The bar is fairly high for those, and the light here isn't too impressive. Nor is the resolution (height). The composition is a bit off too; I feel like this should be cropped on the left.--Peulle (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Peulle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Peulle.--Vulphere 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others--Boothsift 06:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2019 at 08:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
- Info There are often sheep at ruins or other archaeological sites in Sweden. They keep the vegetation in check in a natural way and have a calming influence on visitors. The matriarch kept me under constant surveillance, and if I did something she found suspicious, she would move her flock. The rest of the flock paid little attention to me. Sheep tagged in both ears means they are kept for breeding. Those with tags in one ear (the rest of the flock) will be slaughtered within twelve months of their birth. All by me,-- Cart (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cart (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- weak support Being a matriarch seems to suck... especially if you're standing behind the focal plane (hence the weak) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got off two shots of this scene to get the flock sharp, but then she moved too much and I couldn't get a third with the focus on her to stack with. Ah well, she did a great job with her flock and I think the sharpness is good enough for a whole flock of sheep. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The group reminds me of a painting of old masters. Unfortunately the middle animal is not in focus. The shadow pattern disturbs the overall picture a lot.--Ermell (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sadly, for us photographers, sheep are smart enough to rest in the shade, but thanks for your kind remark about the group. :) --Cart (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment "matriarch standing guard" is not how sheep behave. Charles (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is a light-hearted way of describing the situation as it unfolded. She was clearly "top dog" in this group, they moved when she moved, came when she called, she kept tabs on me and so on. Some non-scientist use of language is allowed in a file title if it helps describe a photo. --Cart (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- For sure, but better in the info rather than title. Charles (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per the first part of Ermell's comment. Cmao20 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose On reflection, I can't ignore this one; it is just too dull, the lighting doesn't work for me and the technical quality is nothing special. Charles (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It's the shadows for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks wow for me, and per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 06:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The shadow is not helping but the shot is too ordinary IMHO, I miss wow here Poco2 14:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support It is a pity that the photo is not sharp here and there. On the other hand, it is a calming image. The shadows do not disturb me. For me it is a beautiful painting.--Famberhorst (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The shadow is here the most important matter; the sheep also seem to be of this opinion. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
File:FCAB GT22CU 2401, GT22CU 2501 and Clyde GL26C 2005 crossing Salar de Carcote.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2019 at 21:52:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
- Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment One of my all-time favourite railways, the FCAB line from Bolivia to Antofagasta, crossing a salt lake surrounded by volcanoes.
- Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Stark and imposing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Higher f and increased ISO might resulted in a better quality but well, it's a striking composition of a 'wow' subject. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cool. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Awesome shadows, great motif. Striking composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support For curious, where were you when you made this image? Looks almost too good to be a drone. Were you in an airplane or convenient hillside? --GRDN711 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hasselblad L1D-20c = camera of the DJI Mavic 2 Pro drone. --A.Savin 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support absolutely impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Yes, the shadows. I prefer last year's POTY finalist, but both are very different compositions and both impressive. Charles (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Those shadows from the train are really cool. :) --Peulle (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, even though a bit oversharpened. --A.Savin 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Stunning. Cmao20 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the feedback! Yes, this was taken with the DJI Mavic 2 Pro. One of the biggest issues of the camera is noise, hence ISO 100; Also, I think sharpness won't improve beyond f4-f4.5 (although I have not tested this). But overall I'm quite happy with the image quality I get from that drone. Regarding sharpening, I've just had a look and there isn't too much difference before/after sharpening. But if desired, I can replace the photo by a completely unsharpened one regardless. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Kabelleger Thanks for the explanation. My remark was just a thought that I put into words :) The image quality is pretty good. I'm quite curious where the quality will be in 10 years! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have a Sony 1" pocket camera and I also prefer to use an aperture of f/4-f/5.6. It is, after all, comparable to f/8-f/11 on full frame. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Indeed, a great spot. Btw, the timing is just perfect. Poco2 06:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- strong support This is by far the best built-in-drone-camera image I have yet encountered, even if the lower corners are a trifle too soft due to the 28 mm wide angle lens. A highly dynamic shot, the long shadows like a row of dominoes on the desert surface. The incredibly long straight line captivates you and you realise that this train is on a mission, giving a sense of movement in an unforgiving landscape, fantastically captured in a still image. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Really Wow. We are an incredible species: able to make splendid images and ruin a beautiful landscape. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Grapes, Dry Creek Valley-7705.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2019 at 14:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_and_raw_vegetables
- Info Veraison (the onset of ripening) of Zinfandel grapes in Dry Creek Valley, Sonoma County, California. Veraison represents the transition from berry growth to berry ripening. During veraison, the berries change their color and soften, sugars and volume increase, and acidity decreases. Not all berries show veraison at the same time. Those exposed to warmer microclimate and mild water stress undergo veraison first. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg.
- Sounds like it could also be how the grapes make phone calls and get online (but that is the wrong coast). Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good quality, and highly valuable in that it shows the process of the grapes changing colour. Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Cmao20 -- Franz van Duns (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice variation of colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Looks tasty ... and I bet it will make great wine! Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A nice picture of grapes--Boothsift 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2019 at 04:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
- Info created by Giacomo Aliprandi - uploaded by Guise - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a contemporary illustration is it? Charles (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I find it interesting that Robespierre's wounds sustained before the execution are not visible. Possibly a choice made by the artist. @Charles: I would say so; Robespierre was beheaded in 1794 and if this engraving is from 1799 that makes it fairly contemporary, right?--Peulle (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well it was published in England, not France, so who knows? Charles (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's also interesting that Robespierre's resisting his execution in this engraving. He did not, actually (he wasn't in a physical condition to fight anyway)... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- And: Robespierre was just one of many to die on this day. Sanson might be considered the world's first assembly line worker during la terreur --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Of course it did not happen like on this engraving. How do you imagine to guillotine somebody with the hands and arms linked in front ? This is just to show how he was afraid/resisting, it is a political design. Actually, he was not conscious, he just screamed when the bandage was removed from his jaw.--Jebulon (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just added the commentary of the French historian Michel Biard. --Guise (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2019 at 15:14:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Taxus. and Pollard willow.
- Info Taxus seeded in a gap of a Pollard willow. at 1.20 meters above the ground. A bird probably hid berries of a yew tree in a crack of the pollard willow before the winter. A (forgotten) berry was then germinated in the spring. With a little imagination, the freakish bark of the tree looks like a rock face.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like how the plant is pictured within a wider crop so we can see all the interesting textures in the bark. Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 13:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose way too much unnecessary bark visible, the cropped version no.7 is better and portrait format would have been the best.--Chianti (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 06:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support What will become of the taxus? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- *Answer: We just let the yew grow on the pollard willow. Eventually the yew will probably not survive as a parasite on the willow tree, because it is too high.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 09:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
- Info A Menger sponge with a light source in its center, cursing shadows via raytracing techniques (ambient occlusion, more infos in the description), after correction suggestions by Wikimedia Commons users (Thanks for that). The PNG version was recommended, so that the lossless character is given, created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose out of scope of Commons per COM:NOTUSED, there's no realistical use for an educational purpose detectable, this artwork is only uploaded to showcase the artist's skills or better: the CPU and GPU power of his computer.--Chianti (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chianti: Since there is a whole category on Commons for these Menger sponges and articles about them in 29 languages, you can't possibly say this is out of scope. This is one of the more interesting versions of these images and it can surely be used somewhere. Please remember that Commons and FPC are not Wikipedia. Read the rules more carefully, especially #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." --Cart (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Definitely useful and valuable in illustrating the Menger sponge, and has wow for me. One that really needs to be viewed in full-res, as the thumbnail tends to make it look dark and undetailed. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support but would prefer brighter whites and deeper blacks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 06:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support No color is a color. This fractal would also display well as a pure, velvety monochrome. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Garden Lizard (গিরগিটি).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 10:18:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Info created by Nafis Ameen - uploaded by Nafis Ameen - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question Can you upload the original if this is downsized. If it's cropped, then it needs a different crop to get rid of the wire on the right hand side (and show more tail?) Charles (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, for now at least, given Charles' points. I really would like to see some more tail, and the wire is hardly an attractive compositional element. Clearly QI, but I'm not sure it compares to some of Charles' own images in this category, to name just one contributor producing work of this kind. Cmao20 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment You might also wonder if the animal was placed on the wire. Otherwise, why would it be in this odd position? Charles (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You mean in the sense that the image may have been made through somewhat unethical practices? Certainly possible and perhaps another reason to be cautious of this one, although IMO we should give the creator the benefit of the doubt.Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No, it's not unethical to handle reptiles, but it's a weird position to find one and not appropriate for FP. Charles (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Didn't know that. I guess I was imagining the animal might hurt itself on the sharp bits of the wire. You know much more about this kind of photography, so I have struck that part of my comment. Cmao20 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- "I really would like to see some more tail" You dirty old man! Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The composition is fine for me. A razor-sharp 6 MP is also adequate for small animals. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The right side can be cropped, I find this part with the leaf distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose That position that the lizard is in is quite odd IMO. Never have I seen a lizard in that position. --Boothsift 05:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Opposeas above and my earlier comments. Charles (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Charles you voted twice -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose looks like lizard has been placed there, unnatural.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Apart from the question of how the lizard got into that position, it's an overly busy composition, especially given that there's such a bright subject on an equally bright background. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The photo looks a bit strange to me.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The position of lizard is strange.--Vulphere 08:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 14:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info Medieval Church of the Intercession on the Nerl near Vladimir, Russia ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 14:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Beautiful image of an important building and UNESCO world heritage site, but I much prefer the composition and lighting of this image, also by you. The darker lighting in the linked image shows more detail in the stonework, and the neighbouring Church of the Three Holy Hierarchs is also visible. Cmao20 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- +1 on the other photo (A bit of light might be added to it though). --Cart (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seems slightly overexposed initially, but only at low resolution. At full resolution all the fine details of the white church walls and of the surrounding snow just blow you away. A lovely, compact image. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like how the church is obscured by the branches. As the other photo shows, it is clearly possible to get a good view of it without any distractions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support I miss some wow but otherwise very nice Poco2 14:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 05:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Unusual composition but it works for me. Cmao20 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Some posterization on the flowers, but they're such a small part of this overall. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Morning fog in Upper Silesia.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2019 at 10:39:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 17:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created & uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much in the shade, IMO, and what is that thing in the bottom right corner?--Peulle (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too random and chaotic for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Nice idea but not an outstanding image – the crop is too tight (a bit even cut off at the bottom), and disturbing background objects should have been avoided. --Kreuzschnabel 06:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose --Fischer.H (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Bamberg-Bug Regintz Kormoran 121710.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 21:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Suliformes
- Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral The bird itself is very nice, but the foreground branch is just too distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice picture, but not as good as two similar existing FPs This one and this one. Charles (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral per Charles, a very nice picture nonetheless and I think it's better than the second linked FP, but maybe not as good as the first. Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The category is incorrect. Phalacrocorax carbo is Suliformes not Anseriformes, I've changed it to the correct category. -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I think Charles is right in his evaluation, but this still is an FP to me. Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 22:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info Coffin of Adalbert of Prague (956-997), Gniezno Cathedral, Gniezno, Poland. c/u/n by me, Poco2 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A beautiful motif, and well-captured. Good quality - the image is relatively sharp at the very top, where one would usually expect some fall-off. Cmao20 (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice composition, nice subject, text clearly visible, good job! --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Papou 5204a.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 11:22:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
- Info created & uploaded by Yves Picq - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Not truly sharp, but a very colourful, very exotic, and thus worthy image. -- 20:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz van Duns (talk • contribs)
- Support per Franz. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Per Franz--Boothsift 05:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per others. Good composition, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2019 at 22:39:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info Aerial view of a glacier in Chugach State Park, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poco2 22:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 22:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Love the lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I don't think lights were your kind to you this time. -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Overall a nice composition, and I suspect one cannot afford to be too choosy about lighting conditions when shooting in Alaska. Cmao20 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support and I personally like that lighting. Ahmadtalk 20:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Quite striking. I'm willing to accept the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2019 at 00:39:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Japan
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Clearly superior to the existing FP, and not really comparable to the other one. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 06:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support So empty... I wasn't that lucky- --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- 7:37am, and when I left the site 30 min later it started to be very busy. Lucky then, yes I agree :) Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Much better quality and composition than the existing FP. Cmao20 (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great; the lamp makes the composition striking. --Aristeas (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Very beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:190807 HK laser pen protest Incendo 05.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2019 at 12:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info Description: The Hong Kong police arrested a university student union president for "possession of offensive weapon", but it is simply a laser pointer pen. Police said it is in fact a "laser gun" and demonstrated that it could burn a hole in a newspaper by pointing it to a black area of a newspaper and holding it steadily for 20 seconds at very short distance. Protesters gathered at the Space Museum and used their own laser pen to recreate the demonstration to mock the police, and to show their anger at the selective prosecution during the anti-extradition bill protest to spread white terror (see Wikipedia for more) Photo created by Studio Incendo @ Flickr - uploaded by Wefk423 - nominated by Wefk423 -- Wefk423 (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Wefk423 (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Wefk423: Please put new nominations on the top of the page,not the bottom. Featured Pictures has a different procedure than valued images. Thank you--Boothsift 17:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Boothsift: My bad. Thank you for the reminder. –Wefk423 (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Perhaps an important image of the protests in Hong Kong, and a dramatic photo, but not of the highest technical quality. For me, if this becomes seen as an iconic image of these events, it might be worth featuring, but not otherwise. Cmao20 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm waiting for the "needs vertical perspective correction" oppose vote :-). The general consensus with such images has been that we should give them time before nominating at FPC. We have had many photos protests or supporters wrt some recent world event and they are hard to judge while emotions are still fresh. If in a year's time, say, we think this is a great image of this event, then we can judge better. Wrt quality, "tank man" is a crap photo judged by modern DSLR standards, but one of the most influential photos of all time, and with a great story behind it being taken and published. I would suggest you withdraw and put to the side for now. -- Colin (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Does have the potential to become an iconic photo (it looks like a scene from an anime or movie where the protagonist gets his superpowers on) but it isn't now, and the technical quality is seriously wanting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really iconic at this moment to compensate for the technical shortcomings. Smartphone cameras have come a long way, but we're still far from the point where they can produce FPs outside of daylight conditions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Technical shortcoming.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others--Boothsift 05:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2019 at 05:07:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's a small stream in Hakatere Conservation Park, Canterbury, New Zealand. The picture was taken during the sunset when everything got orangy / pinky colours. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Looks like it could be the cover photo of Outdoor Photographer! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 06:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The reflection of the yellow sky in the water makes the picture exceptional -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support wow! Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support You really are on a roll at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Basile and others: an impressive image. I especially admire the colours of the sky in the two troughs of the ridge. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Really impressive. Ahmadtalk 15:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Ahmad. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Basile and Franz. --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2019 at 05:41:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
- Info Not expecting this to perform well here, but I'll give it a shot. What is this? This is a Dendrocoelum cavaticum, a species of triclad. What is a triclad? A member of the order Tricladia, part of the phylum, Platyhelminthes or flatworms. This is probably the first triclad nominated here and it is the only quality image of a triclad we have if I am not mistaken. created by and uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 05:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 05:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Quality seems adequate to me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Difficult subject. While the nomination rationale seems a bit VI, underwater pictures are hard, and obscure animals are hard. Anyone with a DSLR can get an FP of a church :-). -- Colin (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Spitzkoppe Rock Arch Panorama.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 08:19:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Namibia
- Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment For a change to most Namibian landscape FPs, this one is not about dunes.
- Support -- Domob (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I've not been there, but the rock looks a bit distorted relative to the landscape. Charles (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The rock arch was relatively close (maybe 20 metres off), so there's some distortion due to perspective. --Domob (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support It's a lovely landscape and very high-resolution, but I'm a little bit bothered about how the sky seems to change colour, from a deeper blue on the left to a light blue on the right. Cmao20 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's unfortunately true (because the right edge of the image is close to where the sun was). If you think it is useful, I can try to make the sky more even in post processing? (But maybe it just looks artificial then.) --Domob (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand the difficulty of getting a uniform sky when shooting closer to the sun. Nevertheless, personally I'd give it a go at making it more even. Cmao20 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've provided an alternate version where the sky is modified to be more even. --Domob (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand the difficulty of getting a uniform sky when shooting closer to the sun. Nevertheless, personally I'd give it a go at making it more even. Cmao20 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's unfortunately true (because the right edge of the image is close to where the sun was). If you think it is useful, I can try to make the sky more even in post processing? (But maybe it just looks artificial then.) --Domob (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I don't mind the sky. The sun must be anywhere and you have also a gradient in the sky in reality. --Llez (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Per Cmao20--Boothsift 05:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per explanation - this is how the sky looked, and there's nothing weird or disturbing about it to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternate
[edit]- Info Alternate version where the sky is modified to be more even. --Domob (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Well done. In my opinion it does look considerably better. Cmao20 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Now the sky is uniformly gray; would be better if the entire sky were brighter. But this image definitely has potential! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I also like the alternate better myself. --Domob (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as not true to life, based on the remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:2011-06-04 Kjeungskjær Lighthouse (The Red Sailor), Sør-Trøndelag, Norway.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 17:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
- Info c/u/n by --GRDN711 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, it's not an FP with these light conditions.--Peulle (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Wow! Something fresh! Like a graphic print. Unfortunately, the horizon is a bit tilted, could you please fix that? --Cart (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Peulle. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure what the issue with the light conditions is here - it works well artistically, making the image seem almost monochrome. Pure black and pure white exist in nature, and we shouldn't be afraid of them. Will support when the horizon is straightened. Cmao20 (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others--Boothsift 05:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support But please fix the horizon --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Cart, @Cmao20, @Martin - have straightened horizon; thank you for catching that. --GRDN711 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! I didn't get a ping since you didn't use any of the notifications that works on the wiki-project. If you want to know how to do that, take a look at Help:Notifications. --Cart (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per above. It is unusual to see the sun glints in a whole photo, mostly it is just a partial, and that's what makes this photo unique and wow-y. --Cart (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per above. Definitely an interesting capture. Cmao20 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: per Peulle --СССР (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 and Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The ship I was on had been going through rain and mild storm all morning. When we reached this point on the coast, the sun, overhead and slightly in front, started to push through the gloom a little. The light conditions are what was there at the time.The result was a desaturated scene but having a full tone curve and detail in both highlights and shadows. The Red Sailor is still red.
- All natural forms in the image like the rocks are rounded and smoothed. Only human-made forms like the lighthouse and jetty show vertical lines. This draws the viewer to other disparate elements. There is a boat at the end of the jetty (attached? drifting?). Why are people walking briskly along the jetty? Why is there a person lying on the jetty by the door? At the top of the lighthouse are more people but why are they looking out in a different direction?
- What makes this image different from most is that it strongly invites the viewer to construct their own narrative about what is going on in the scene. The muted colors support that interaction.
- Have fun thinking about this one. More votes, please. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's nice to hear someone with these kind of thoughts about a photo. Usually, the only questions we read here are: Is it sufficiently denoised? Does it have the proper license and categories? Why that f-number? Why are the islands cut? And. So. On. This is how you should really view a photo. Refreshing. --Cart (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support An image on the verge to black and white. Surely not more than a few seconds to aim this shot with the ship ploughing on. Not 100% sharp, but certainly viable considering the above described circumstances. In fact, this slight blurring amidst glaring sunlit waves in back- and foreground enhances the movement of the persons on the jetty. I also like the chance composition: the bouy, the boat, the jetty, the persons' movements, the lighthouse, and the rocks, all in a perfectly straight line. This is maybe not a technically perfect image, but it is a shot every photographer would be proud of! -- Franz van Duns (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support it is not standard, but excellent.--Christof46 (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting, though intended, doesn't appeal to me. Charles (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I only keep wondering: 'Where do they get water from at the lighthouse?' (if they have any there) --Podzemnik (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- There were usually water tanks in the lighthouses when they were continuously manned, ships came with water and supplies. Some of them also had means to collect rain water. Lighthouses are sort of built along the same principles as boats. :) --Cart (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Except lighthouses can't get out of a boat's way. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- True. Lighthouse vs Boat: 1-0 :-) --Cart (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Except lighthouses can't get out of a boat's way. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Remarkable lighting. -- Colin (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the mood of this. You've been on the ferry, with that sense of "neither here nor there, only in between", all day, and finally in late afternoon you're getting to your destination and you pass this scene, and all's still right with the world. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose not an exzellent picture fpr me.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support very nice light Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks like ice but it isn´t. I'm not convinced or wowed by the light situation. --Milseburg (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
* Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC) You voted twice. --Milseburg (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:2019-02-15 074 Roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) at Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, Mexico.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2019 at 18:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info A prehistoric face on a graceful body in flight. Pink from a diet of crustaceans against a blue sky - c/u/n by -- GRDN711 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Very beautiful, but clearly slightly motion-blurred, and IMO marginally oversharpened to compensate. This kind of shot is very difficult, and this is far from a bad example, so I think it's a clear QI and very possibly a VI too. But given the superb work of JJ Harrison amongst others photographing birds in flight, I don't think this is quite at the same level. Cmao20 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao20.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Eye not sharp. Charles (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao; also pretty noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too noisy.--Vulphere 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2019 at 19:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Popeye's arms :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support What a muscular frog --Boothsift 05:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support It's smiling! --Podzemnik (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great. --Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Franz van Duns (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Longines 4 Grand Prix pocket watch - clockwork visible - enhanced resolution DSF3402-PSMS.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2019 at 15:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
- Info created by Franz van Duns - uploaded by Franz van Duns - nominated by Franz van Duns -- Franz van Duns (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Franz van Duns (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional information: Longines manual winding pocket watch, model 4 Grand Prix, silver casing, manufactured approx. 1900. Rear view, wear marks, clockwork visible. Please consult image page for further details concerning both displayed item & image processing. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support Lovely mechanism, extraordinary sharpness. The blurriness of the case is essentially unavoidable when shooting this kind of image, without focus stacking anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 21:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great work Franz van Duns! --Podzemnik (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Simple and successful composition but the blurry part is a bit distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Tick Tock. Great details. Ahmadtalk 16:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very valuable and tremendous detail sharpness. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20, Basile, Panthera, et al. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2019 at 11:17:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
- Info created by Jacob Riis - uploaded by Catfisheye - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support This image speaks for itself. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Riis definitely deserves a more prominent role on commons - but are you sure this is the best quality available? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- On Commons, yes. KennyOMG (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral pending resolution of above question. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Striking image, famous photographer, important archive -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support For me, it has a "sad wow" inside and, as Basile Morin mentioned above, it's a "striking" image. Nothing else to say, support. P.S: I checked TinEye for a better quality, it's likely to be the best one available for free. There is a $499 version available here, by the way. Ahmadtalk 15:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Basile. Cmao20 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 20:35:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
- Info Stock sponge at a beech tree stacked from 8 images. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question Are you sure the tree is a beech? The bark of a beech is normally smooth.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment On the left side the original bark is to be seen, at the rough place the tree is injured and no more bark exists.--Ermell (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose After a long hesitation, I voted against. I find the right side too disturbing.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support There is a red dead pixel just below the bottom mushroom. Small tip: When you try to find the right English name for something, don't use Google translate, it can end up wrong (like for this file). Instead go to the German WP article and then click on the "English" in the left coulumn to get to the English article. It works most of the time. With names of plants and animal you can look at the top of the category page where the names in different languages are displayed. The number of stacked photos should also be on the file page. I have fixed these things for you. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good composition and sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support But please remove the red pixel :) --Podzemnik (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Pixel fixed and @Famberhorst: right side optimised.--Ermell (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Really impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the insect on the bottom of the third one from the top. Good detail. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice--Boothsift 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 06:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Glödnitz Kleinglödnitz Fußbrücke über Glödnitzbach und Stallgebäude O-Ansicht 04082019 6905.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2019 at 16:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Austria
- Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Seven Pandas -- Seven Pandas (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The promise of a summer day. Although I think it could be cropped at the sides and on the bottom a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Daniel Case: Following your advice I cropped the photo as suggested. —- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice balanced composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral A very nice idea, but the composition feels a bit unbalanced to me; the bridge feels stifled because there is no room to go on the right. A wider view or a different vantage point (perhaps the bridge leading to the road or barn) would have been more effective. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Sorry, it's a great-quality picture as usual for this author, but I'm not sure I see very much that amazes me here. It looks like it will pass anyway, though. Cmao20 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree with Cmao20 but see no point in bucking this strong a consensus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Mandrilperspective6.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 06:37:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
- Info I apologize, but here is another skull. created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 06:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 06:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The skull of this species is very particular, with a jaw that seems to project forward with excessive canines, which can be compared to those of the panthers. It's nice that Homo sapiens did not evolve in this direction because we would have already disappeared. Thanks to Boothsift for this nomination.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very skull-fully done. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sharp, good composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel Cmao20 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wow, this is actually a multiple nomination! The image page displays three more images of this skull, all focus stacked and all taken from different angles. Every minute detail of the bone structure is visible due to the high resolution. My full respect. Please, more of this kind as featured pictures. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 06:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info created - uploaded by Ivar Leidus - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great colour.--Peulle (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very fine composition. Would be a very nice desktop wallpaper :). --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great photo of a small creature. --Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Hockei (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Almost looks cuddly! Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Another good image in high resolution. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A really good find. Cmao20 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support This image not only captures the finest bristles on the creature's tiny legs, it also finely renders the caterpillar's varied skin colourings, all in front of a remarkable and convincingly smooth background. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice--Boothsift 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 18:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Hagia Sophia Mars 2013.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2019 at 15:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info I was surprised that we don't yet have an FP of the Hagia Sophia, surely the finest and most famous example of Byzantine architecture. This one seems FP quality to me; I admit the light isn't perfect, but the quality and resolution are superb, and, looking at other images of the building on Commons, it seems to be shot from the best angle possible to show the architecture. Created by ArildV - uploaded by ArildV - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support You're right, I never found a decent place to shoot it from. Charles (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because we don't have better images here in Commons doesn't mean that better angle could not be done. The trees are very distracting and the foreground is too busy. Also rather dull light. —kallerna (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think three is a better angle, —kallerna. Charles (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I’ve seen better in several wallpapers. —kallerna (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Charles --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Is the left side leaning a bit? Look at the tower.--Peulle (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Charles --GRDN711 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 19:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
- Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Particular landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Info Have you considered opening up the shadows a bit more? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I personally don't find that necessary. In File:Central Park New York May 2015 007.jpg for example, the shadows covered up so much of the image that a lot of interesting detail was hidden, so I bumped up the shadows a substantial amount. Here, some parts are merely dark but still contain detail, and the few parts that are pitch black are very small and have no interesting detail to recover, so I think such a move would just reduce contrast. Now, a global brightening is something I'd be willing to consider, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Interesting composition and light. The only thing that bugs me a bit is that the sea horizon doesn't seems to be very straight. It doesn't bug me enough not to support but if you could have a look at it, that'd be great :) --Podzemnik (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 08:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 23:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Info created by Andrew Fest uploaded by and nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 23:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 23:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I like the photo but wonder whether the brightest highlights should be dialed back a bit. Then again, that could be my monitor. What do the rest of you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Vignette, oversharpened. -- -donald- (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The vignetting is very heavy.--Peulle (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This had the makings of a great photo, but I think the processing has gone a little bit overboard. The vignetting and slightly stylised effect are clearly done for artistic reasons, but they make it look a bit too much like an Instagram snap rather than a realistic photo. Cmao20 (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Sorry but the vignette means this is unlikely to be acceptable for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Fritz Quant Römerbrücke.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2019 at 08:08:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media#Others
- Info created by Fritz Quant (before 1921) - reproduced from an original etching, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Solid reproduction. Cmao20 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Cmao20. I suppose that this is the maximum of detail one can extract by a photographic process from a historic print of an engraving sized at just approx 70% of a DIN A4 sheet. My admiration. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nicely done--Boothsift 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Kakteen IMG 4213.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2019 at 08:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 06:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support great colors! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Good picture, but what is a "Clove-like Cactus plant" (see description page)? This is a typical Cactus flower and has nothing, really nothing to do with a Clove plant. It should be possible to give at least a better taxonomic description of the flower. I suppose it is an Echinopsis or a close relative --Llez (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Top leaf cropped off and distracting background. Bad file name and description. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Interesting lighting; the contrast is on the high side, but here it works really well. --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Mx Lucy (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2019 at 15:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Info created & uploaded by Bald white guy - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't seem very crisp - even taking into account the choice of F4. Charles (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A higher f/stop would be beneficial to increase the depth of field but the eye is sharp and all lines lead to it. - --GRDN711 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Works for me, given the distance to the target.--Peulle (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charles and GRDN711 are right that a higher f-stop would be preferable, but it's sharp where it counts, and besides it's 18 mpx. Cmao20 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Striking view, sharp at 6Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support GRDN711 nailed it. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 10:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 06:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Cmao20 Poco2 10:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2019 at 19:41:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info Inverness Cathedral's nave looking south towards the choir and altar in Scotland, UK. Inverness Cathedral, constructed between 1866 and 1869, is the northernmost cathedral in the British Isles, and also contains the northernmost set of peal-ringing bells in the world. It was the first Anglican cathedral constructed in Britain since the Reformation. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just a note: I will understand if anyone opposes because of the slight motion blur on the flag at the right-hand side, but please consider that such motion blur is difficult to avoid given the necessity of a long exposure. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Full support The mainstay is the perfection of detail reaching almost into the farthest corners, unexpected, at least for me, for a 10 mm full frame ultra wide angle lens. The text at mid right is easily legible: "To the Glory of God and in memory of ...". The stained glass windows are a trifle on the bright side, but this is only noticeable at full resolution and thus IMHO negligible. All taken, a fine image, worthy to be named a featured picture! By the way, I visited this cathedral in summer 1971. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The flag doesn't bother me, the motion blur is actually alright as the flag is still recognizable (compare with this). --Podzemnik (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 10:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2019 at 17:38:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
- Info created by Harris & Ewing - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Info This delists File:SenatorWetmoreInAutomobile retouched.jpg Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question Is it a {{Delistandreplace}}? Why not following the standard procedure? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin: ...Because I'm a n idiot. I'll put up a delist for it, if needed, as soon as this closes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Or faster, withdraw this one and renominate correctly. That will save time for all -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- At this point, this'll pass the Rule of the Fifth Day in about two days. I suspect withdrawing it now is highly counterproductive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- After promotion, we'll delist the other one, this will take 9 more days. Do the math... -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Adam Cuerden: you've added the {{Superseded}} template on the original FP before any consensual decision. Please could you tell us which changes you made exactly (apart from the size slightly increased)? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin: Fixed the damage on the faces of Wetmore and his wife that was completely missed in the previous, removed a lot of damage and speckling that was missed, and did it all from the full-resolution TIFF, instead of a JPEG. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. @Adam Cuerden: you missed my question above, though -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain for now, per above, I will support a proper {{Delistandreplace}} candidature -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 10:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, but does this truly delist and replace? Is the standard format not required for that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ikan, no, this is not a proper delist and replace. Unfortunately, it's not the first time Adam tries to use these home-made "delist and replace" nominations. Not so long ago, we had to have a small campaign to actually delist the photos he thought he had replaced. I would urge Adam to please use the proper procedure for this kind of nominations. The best thing would be to withdraw this nomination and start a proper delist and replace nom, but failing that, the old photo needs to be nominated for delisting as soon as this nom is over. Not an efficient way to have to make two noms instead of just a normal one. --Cart (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Check your history. Delist and replace procedures did not exist for the things you're complaining about. The whole procedure is relatively recent on commons. I noticed the replacement for this was featured after voting had started. Calm down, please. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- What a weird coincidence, I mentioned this file very recently on the FP talk page, where Delisting was exactly the subject, and my comment literally "Please never delist :-)" I know this is not a real delist and just a better version, but really what a surprising nomination coming now in those circumstances -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2019 at 20:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's Southshore Spit Reserve, a nature reserve in Christchurch, New Zealand. It's a very small reserve all surrounded by the ocean that is right behind me, behind the horizon and on the right side of me, too. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Lovely light. Cmao20 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Deserted scenery. The lone pillar is not the most photogenic element, but overall the atmosphere is wild and serene -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin I was thinking about removing it but I decided not to. It's a natural reserve that is usually full of native birds. They quite like sitting on that pole. I'm pretty sure that the pole was actually place there for them. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Removing it", from your picture or from the ground? Too bad it looks a bit industrial. Maybe birds love sitting on it, but not this time unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- From the picture of course --Podzemnik (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lucky birds; shame for the next photographers :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 10:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Very peaceful, nice light, good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support wow. -- Colin (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 08:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 20:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
- Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose A lot of discordant shapes, and the sky is seriously overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Sometimes the sky is very bright and garish. And the clouds don't have high contrasts. But what I don't understand at all is, what you mean with A lot of discordant shapes, ...? Every shape shows the reality. However, I withdraw my nomination. Others will not have a different opinion anyway. --Hockei (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Daslook (Allium ursinum) d.j.b 07.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 15:13:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
- Info Allium ursinum ramsons. The small flower buds are entwined in the cracked flower bud. This photo shows for me. how beautifully the flower buds lie in the cracked cocoon.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 18:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: it's too bad the sepal is sharper than the flower buds but I like the elegance of it. --СССР (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the simplicity of the shapes against the background. Cmao20 (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 10:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 12:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Pyrrhura perlata - Karlsruhe Zoo 03.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 07:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 10:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - What's on his beak? He needs to wipe it! :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, these birds... are real pigs! :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 12:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 21:12:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
- Info Dobryninskaya station of Moscow Metro ------ all by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 21:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Pity about those two people in the back but still pretty good. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, and no complaint about the couple from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Podzemnik -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Fine work, as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 01:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Japan
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support ahhh... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 09:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment the reflection of the tree is cut off in the middle of its crown which disturbs/destroys the reflection a lot. Cropping out the whole treetop refelction would be better, see suggestion.--Chianti (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please Chianti, add your notes on the nomination page, not on the original file page, where they're displayed everywhere outside this section, Wikipedia included. I've moved it for you. Thanks for your suggestion. However the result is not very well balanced in my view, particularly the building, which I prefer here in the middle. I may crop the water a little bit more, at the bottom and at the right, keeping the 16:9 ratio, but I don't think that will change that much -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment thank you very much for smoothing out my mistake, sorry for that. I'm only expressing my opinion from my first impressions – if you prefer it in the middle which is a valid reason from a composition standpoint, leave it like it is.--Chianti (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- After reflection, I made this small change, not exactly your crop, but slightly less water and less tree, then I'm happy with the result. Thanks for your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent, I can't find a better image of this (fairly iconic) temple on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Fischer.H (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very difficult to get that without people.--Ermell (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. When I was there, the place was totally overcrowed. That was during koyo though, a main season for both domestic as well as international tourists --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- 9:03am, just 3 min after opening :-) But that was my second visit, since the weather was terrible the first time. Long way to go, but more fruitful that sunny day -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nicely done--Boothsift 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - In theory, I'd want more and not less reflection of the trees. In practice, that's a very small detail and a debatable one (excellent painters cut stuff off all the time) and the composition as is is quite good, and as usual, this is a very crisp image from you. Overall, beautiful and excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ahmadtalk 12:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Chur in Graubünden (Zwitserland) 41.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2019 at 15:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture #Switzerland.
- Info The city Chur is the oldest settlement in Switzerland. This old street with the beautifully painted house is located in the Altstadt.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC) - Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The lighting's not really that interesting, I'm afraid. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like it the way it is. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: the sky is unispiring, but the rest of the scene more than compensates for it --СССР (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Martin. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Intimate image of a fight. The brightly colored facade tries to resist the gray sky, which seems to invade everything.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support An intimate portrait of an old house. Given the narrow streets and comparatively tall buildings, this scene is best when evenly lit. The sky could of course be more interesting, but it's par for the course. Twilight on a clear day would really be the best time for this shot, probably. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. I’m on the "too dull" side. Can’t be too hard to re-take this in better lighting (maybe at a higher resolution and containing less noise), so I don’t see why this should be featured. Sorry if my wording is too harsh. --Kreuzschnabel 21:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose --per Martin Falbisoner. Fischer.H (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like it very much, and the sky doesn't bother me. Reminds me of this image by Poco. Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Per Martin --Boothsift 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Uninspiring sky, attractive facade. Compelling perspective effect with all the lines converging towards this red building, different from the others. Nice historical paintings at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Dull light. This is a clearly featurable motif, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I do agree with Ikan Poco2 10:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 20:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's Hakatere River valley, Canterbury, New Zealand. I like the light and different colours in the sky. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. High resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I wasn't sure about the composition at first, but looking at it in full size, it's very impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 17:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created & uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support What a punk! So special. Good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Fischer.H (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Different. Funny. Good moment. But please rename the file after the nomination is over to something more meaningful. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Tomer T (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tomer T, the "rename the file after the nomination" is because a rename during a nom will mess with the codes if the nom is successful. I've put this on my watchlist so I'll fix things after the closing. --Cart (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Cart, maybe if I change the name of the nomination page it will work better? Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tomer T, well technically yes. If you move the file name, you have to move the nom-page too to the same new name and see to it that all the names are fixed in the top part of the nom and put a speedy-delete on the old redundant nom page. If you are not sure what you are doing, mistakes can make things worse. If you rename a file after the nom is closed, the redirects will sort things out nicely. Just leave it be for now and I'll fix it later. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support That's quite a fun picture. Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Impatiens pallida.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 02:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Ericales
- Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- СССР (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Decent sharpness but the top is cut and the bottom a bit empty -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- These flowers hang from the stalks, cutting it is unavoidable. --СССР (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, then -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment should be brighter IMO.--Ermell (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not that I'm totally against brightening it, but why do you think so? It was taken with a flash from what was very close to the lens' minimum focusing distance of 0.28m, which, I think, provided for more than adequate illumination. The background is dark because the plant grows on the floor of the forest with a very thick canopy. СССР (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I understand the circumstances, but I still find the shadows distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how do you not find the multiple shadows that are actually on the subject distracting here? --СССР (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Why is the photo only 6MP? -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's cropped; the flower is only a couple of cm is size, and I couldn't get any closer to focus. --СССР (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support but as Ermell I would prefer it slightly brighter --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The shadows are a bit annoying, but overall still good. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Due to the shadows--Boothsift 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above Poco2 10:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 02:13:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Really, really great idea, pity it’s literally full of denoising/sharpening artifacts at 100 percent view, even in the center of the image. I cannot find a single natural-looking edge. Towards the corners it looks rather like a painting than a photograph. I think a stitched panorama would have done much better here instead of an ultra wide angle shot. --Kreuzschnabel 06:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pixel peeping? There's almost no sharpening here. It was shot @100 ISO with an excellent lens, then sharp from the beginning. No need to increase anything. A stitched panorama would have certainly given the same result, but with the risk of potential stitching errors. This ultra wide rectilinear lens is very adapted in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- strong oppose The problem here is that the light is awful (and the noise Kreuzschnabel sees when pixel peeping is caused by lifting the shadows to try to lighten the dull interior). We're supposed to be selecting the finest on Commons, so compare with two other photographs on Commons of this building: File:Tokyo International Forum Glass Building 1.jpg and File:Tokyo International Forum Glass Building 3.jpg. Both are high resolution though have pixel-peeping issues. But wow, the lighting in those photographs is amazing. Rather than dull shade colours as though the building had solid walls and roof and some tiny windows, we have bright sunlight colours, with a multitude of patches of light through the glass atrium. This nomination is a long way short, photographically, from those images. -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
discussion
|
---|
|
dispensable contents
|
---|
|
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral per Colin. I'm really sorry, Basile, it seems like I've been less than supportive of a lot of your photos recently, and I don't much like doing so as they are always of very high quality. The vast majority of your nominations here are FP to me, and I don't agree about the sharpening/denoising artefacts either. But I do think that a glass atrium is supposed to be bright and airy, and a dull light really doesn't suit it. Honestly, I don't think the quality of the two pictures Colin suggests are at all bad given their high resolution, and I would probably support either for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- For me this soft light shows well the interior design and highlights the colossal structure of the roof. I also like the beautiful sky through the glass and the window blinds being lit by the sun -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- ... and you are right. Great composition and distribution of the lighter and darker parts, also very natural colours with a nice contrast between the yellowish blinds and the blue sky and blueish interior.--Chianti (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice in my opinion--Boothsift 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Chianti (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 17:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Solanales
- Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 18:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a QI. This is an extremely common flower, of which we have hundreds of comparable images on Commons. At only 3MP this is a long way short of the detail and composition and lighting we expect at FP in 2019. Seven Pandas, Vulphere, FP is about the finest on Commons, just just a pretty flower. I don't think you are doing the necessary homework before supporting FP. Fischer.H, I have fixed your FP link, would you please take more care to get your nomination right. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I'd like to see something more special for a flower FP - like interesting lighting, great composition, crisp sharpness or high resolution. The composition is good but unfortunately I'm not getting more of the mentioned things. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others; I don't think that background does it any favors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others; sharpness is good, but the resolution and detail don't quite match up to many recent flower FPs. Cmao20 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others on this image, sorry--Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 17:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures<Plants/Triticum aestivum>
- Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Apart from the blurriness and the small dimensions I miss the Wow effect in the first place.--Ermell (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ermell --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ermell.--Vulphere 07:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Senfweißling auf Pusteblume.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 06:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info created - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The out-of-focus seedhead doesn't work for me, nor does the yellow background. Butterfly is very sharp. I'd rotate a couple of degrees too. Charles (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles's complaints about the background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I have to agree on the background – while the butterfly itself is great, the distracting intensity of the screaming yellow spoils it. It feels like sipping a wonderful wine out of a candy-coloured plastic mug :) Try to lower the yellow saturation a bit, that hardly affects the rest of the image. --Kreuzschnabel 06:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose --per Charlesjsharp.Fischer.H (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fischer.H, you are expected to give a reason for an oppose. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Looking at the photographer's uploads, the background is natural and makes a pleasant change. Also nice to see full size high resolution images of insects, which I don't recall seeing much of since Jee stopped taking photographs for FP. We've got used to <10MP recently, which is a bit of a backward step. I see insect photos up to 40MP in this photographers's upload list, which is a bit more like it for 2019. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- A bit more like it? Many photographers cannot afford 40MP capability. Jee's and my cameras only have 24MP. Charles (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Colin - not perfect, but great considering the size. Cmao20 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I also agree per Colin. A wonderfully sharp image, and, as for the yellow background, well, why not? I know how much effort and how many dozens of shots it takes to achieve such a high level of detail across the frame if the subject is alive, which I assume is the case here. My regular 42 MBit images of live insects usually whittle down to 10 MBit or less, thus my full respect for such a convincing image displaying an incredible width of 5531 pixels! By the way, this is the first image I have encountered lacking EXIF data. Any reason why? -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Franz van Duns the missing EXIF might be due to whatever software was last used to save the image. Some of the more basic programs just discard it. Alternatively, I think Photoshops "Save for the web" also discards it due to an 1990's mindset about saving a few bytes. You could ask the photographer what they used. Btw, Megapixels (MP) isn't the same as MBit (which is just filesize and depends on compression used). Filling the frame with an insect requires good kit and good technique and an awful lot of patience for failure. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Colin Thank you for your answer and your quick reply. It seems that the vast majority of contributors uses software that does pass on the EXIF data, more or less unchanged. Opps, I admit I was slightly distracted when I typed "MBit", when "MPixel" was what I actually meant. By the way, each one of my RAW files is approximately 85 MBytes (680 MBit) in size before being processed to the final JPG image. And yes, I also agree that much, much patience is the requisite element contributing to that singular image that stands out against dozens, or even hundreds, of technically perfect, but simply less outstanding images.
- Franz van Duns the missing EXIF might be due to whatever software was last used to save the image. Some of the more basic programs just discard it. Alternatively, I think Photoshops "Save for the web" also discards it due to an 1990's mindset about saving a few bytes. You could ask the photographer what they used. Btw, Megapixels (MP) isn't the same as MBit (which is just filesize and depends on compression used). Filling the frame with an insect requires good kit and good technique and an awful lot of patience for failure. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 10:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 19:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
- Info created by Warren's Portraits, Boston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent, I had no idea what Miss Alcott actually looked like; great we have such a high-quality photo of her. Cmao20 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 03:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
- Info created by Vincent van Gogh - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot and edited by Cléééston - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 03:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine (✉) 03:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Great job by Google Art Project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Indeed.--Peulle (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Yes! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 19:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 04:29:39
- Info Böhringer, sorry but I am nominating your picture for a removal. This is a good picture, however we currently have six featured pictures of male specimens of the species. Yes, this is not valued images, however this one IMO doesn't hold well against the others. I find the background kind of distracting and unlike the others, the butterfly is really small. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Boothsift 04:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I actually like the background --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm not sure whether I'd support or not if this were a new nomination, but my standard is, if it's not obvious that a picture should be delisted, I vote to keep, and this photo is pretty good at least. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It needs a decent crop to frame it better and to get rid of the distracting background, but otherwise is OK. Charles (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep per above. Not the best FP of this species, but not such a clear-cut case that it deserves to be delisted. I agree that a good crop would improve it though, perhaps a vertical crop to keep all of the plant? Cmao20 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain until this nomination is signed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews--Boothsift 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2019-07-20-Dingle Lightgouse-0673.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 03:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by User:ETH-Bibliothek - uploaded by User:ETH-Bibliothek - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 03:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine (✉) 03:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Weak supportNot bad quality for a night shot, but I'm a bit disturbed by that unsightly chimney. Cmao20 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Sorry but the more I think about this one, it's not at the level of an FP night shot for me. The composition is not especially appealing, although I'm sure the image is very valuable and useful. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support per Cmao; without metadata I can't be sure if this was the best possible shot, i.e. it looks like it might have been a long exposure but I can't tell for sure. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao--Boothsift 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The dark trees of the foreground make the composition cluttered. The quality is not exceptional, with these buildings at the distance lacking sharpness. Blown highlights through the windows of the main building are not really successful, it would have been more interesting to make the interior visible, with HDR for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I generally agree with Basile's points. I also am not so impressed with the quality and amount of noise, compared to some other blue hour photos we've featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Pine (✉) 00:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 16:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Pieridae_(Whites_and_Sulphurs)
- Info There are quite a few FPs of male brimstones. I think this nomination is better than one, two, three, four, five, six. There would be an argument for delisting some. This one of mine has nice detail, but not such an appealing composition. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Though the eye is not '"out of focus", the focus is more on the wing than on the eye. Not the finest of Commons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Christian Ferrer. Good photo, but not one of the finest I'm afraid. --Boothsift 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I'm not sure this is better than all of the other ones, but I like the composition and it's good enough for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Christian Ferrer.--Ermell (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per above. Charles, I think your existing FP is considerably better in detail, and I don't see much wrong with the composition of it. I like Kallerna's FP better too. Cmao20 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination OK, I hear you. Thanks for all the contributions. Charles (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I will renominate as I have got the species wrong. Charles (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 16:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created by Amoghavarsha, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I think this is one of the best image of a tiger we have. The background is noisy, but the tiger is sharp enough. -- Yann (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise IMO, and the resolution could have been better too.--Peulle (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Peulle: It is the maximum resolution of the camera, then cropped. Do you that noise could be reduce with careful editing? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose We have lots of good images of tigers in the category. For example, File:Berlin Tierpark Friedrichsfelde 12-2015 img23 Siberian tiger.jpg, File:Tiger Davidraju 3.jpg and File:Panthera tigris tigris Tidoba 20150306.jpg. This one has rather a lot of ploughed/exposed soil and a distracting lump on the RHS. The tiger itself is fine. The image is extracted from a 24MP version though 12MP is still respectable for wildlife. There's no details about whether this is wild or captive or where it was taken. The high 1,600 ISO is necessary to get 1/500s and f/4 is likely the fastest for this 300mm lens, so I can understand there will be some noise when pixel peeping. Re Yann: the noise is better removed by the photographer before sharpening (especially by masking out the background so it isn't sharpened to enhance noise). It will not be as successful to fix the jpg. -- Colin (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The images Colin mentions are better quality, as are some of the existing FPs such as this unusual fellow. Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- But we should not be comparing this image of a Bengal tiger with the 'white tiger' or the Siberian tiger mentioned above. Charles (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, a white tiger is a type of Bengal tiger, simply a variant caused by a lack of a particular pigment. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between most of the tiger subspecies, but it's worth noting that the Bengal tiger is significantly more common than the Siberian tiger (although, of course, both are endangered). If we have an excellent-quality shot of the Siberian tiger such as A. Savin has provided us with, then IMO we should be able to do at least as well for the Bengal tiger. The only subspecies for which I'd drop the quality requirements would be one of the really rare ones like the South China tiger, since that would be a more unique shot; but even then, there are several individuals in captivity. So, on the whole, I think we should wait until a better photo of this kind comes along rather than just promoting the best one we already have. Cmao20 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This photo was the best shot I got, but the light wasn't perfect. Charles (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others, especially Colin --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I asked the author if he could make a version with less noise. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 07:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Pieridae_(Whites_and_Sulphurs)
- Info Apologies for renomination. I got the identification wrong. Luckily for me, it's not a brimstone, it's the much more uncommon cleopatra (which we don't have in the UK). No existing FPs. @Christian Ferrer, Daniel Case, Boothsift, Ikan Kekek, Ermell, and Cmao20: All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The focus is on the wing. A valuable and nice image but not the finest of Commons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support In that case, no issues. Cmao20 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose No existing FP doesn't mean, that we should lower the bar. Not featured for me, sorry --Ivar (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Christian, sorry -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Christian --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Sorry, Cleo. Charles (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 20:07:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created by and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 20:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 20:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Thanks, Boothsift. Taken while hiding behind a bollard while she did some fishing. (btw I say "she" but AFAIK they are sexually monomorphic, so I'm not sure). — Rhododendrites talk | 22:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support "For everything, tern, tern, tern, there is a season ..." Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Nice photo, but aren't FPs of birds this size usually sharper? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Per Ikan, a nice one, but not outstanding in comparison to others. I also prefer seing wild life pictures in a wild life environment Poco2 10:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. --Hockei (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seems reasonably sharp to me. A bit noisy in the darker areas, but I prefer noise to unsharpness from too much NR. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Common bird. Concrete perch not good. No definition to feathers at all. Nowhere near FP quality in composition or technical standard. I'm amazed at the positive votes. Charles (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Weird halo around the bird's head. Concrete is also not great. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm OK with an urban bird being perched on concrete, but I think a bird this size should be sharper for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question @Rhododendrites: As I currently do not have access to photo editing tools, are you able to address some of the issues? Thank you--Boothsift 00:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's not much from the above criticisms that I can fix. Only the halo that KoH mentioned, I think, and I don't think that would be enough to change anyone's mind, really. I appreciate the nomination, but it just doesn't seem like this one's going to fly, so to speak. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 18:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Per Rhododendrites, thank everyone for the reviews--Boothsift 22:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Chalet du Mont-Royal panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 05:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
- Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- СССР (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 18:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, no wow. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture that illustrates its subject well, but I agree with Colin, it's not a massively imposing or impressive building, and although the sky is blue, it's quite dull and featureless. Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not very wowing--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Solitär in der Hamburger HafenCity.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 06:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
- Info High-rise appartment building on the corner of Osakaallee and Tokiostraße, HafenCity quarter Hamburg, as seen from Überseeboulevard. The building is an example of the solitary architecture that this part of Hamburg has been criticised for. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Reminds me of this FP of mine. Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A bold, striking image that works well because of the contrast of red against blue. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A building with slight vertical distortion is not supposed to work - but somehow it does. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support rare picture, indeed. Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Sumba sheeps 1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 06:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 10:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Baaa!!! Nice photo. Please rename after it passes, as the plural of "sheep", oddly enough, is "sheep". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure they're not sheeps off the old block? Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Would make a great "Hello from the Farøe Islands!" postcard. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Never been to the Farøe Islands, would like to some day--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice view of a place I indeed don't know, but the technical level is not FP, there is a very clear drop of quality on the right side. Furthermore, it needs a perspective correction (look at the houses on the right leaning out) Poco2 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is not architecture photography. Normal top-down view, and the horizon is correct -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't care what kind of photography this is, Basile Morin, to me that's a flaw here and there --Poco2 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Need to ping me for this? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 11:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info Volcanic landscape featuring from left to right Tomasamil (5,890 m or 19,320 ft), Cañapa (5,882 m or 19,298 ft), Ollagüe (5,868 m or 19,252 ft) and Aucanquilcha (6,176 m or 20,262 ft), Andes, southern Bolvia/northern Chile. c/u/n by me, Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support That's one heck of a panorama. No stitching faults visible, at least not to me, and sharpness is great everywhere. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I suggest 3 things: 1) to remove that piece of rubbish (see the note), 2) remove something what I think was left after a dust spot removal (see another note), 3) add information that is in the notes (about vulcanos) into the description. Some devices like phones might struggle to display the notes so it'd be nice to have that in the description, too. These are minor things that don't stop me from supporting anyway :) --Podzemnik (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Podzemnik: thanks for the notes, all 3 points have been addressed, thank you Poco2 19:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment impressive, but can you please correct the minor stitching error, see note --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Uoaei1: sharp eye! thanks for that note, I fixed it. Poco2 19:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Winter auf der Abtsrodaer Kuppe.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 12:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
- Info Winter on the Abtsrodaer Kuppe. View over the Rhön Montains. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Your namesake is in this picture! Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Pleasant view and the curved lines up and down give dynamism -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Basile. The curve on the ground is echoed in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Basile. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Basile and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nicely done--Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 22:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I quite like the composition and how the clouds fit into it. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Only thing keeping me from strong support is the almost-blown clouds at right, although there may have been nothing you could do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support If the sun lights up a white cloud, it should be "Oh my eyes are hurting" bright to look at, and there is no detail anyway. Sadly we don't have HDR JPG yet, but please don't turn them paper-white just to please FPC reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Really refreshing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sublime beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 10:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 04:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Schwalbenschwanz (Papilio machaon).jpg (delist), not delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 13:03:24
- Info It's a very soft image with too much out of focus. Please compare with nomination below. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Charles (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Our interpretations of the rules differs. I believe I am entitled to nominate any image for delisting. The community may disagree. And the rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, Charles has the right to nominate two delists in addition to his normal noms (at the moment only one AFAICS, the other one is withdrawn). It is up to the community to decide if they should be delisted though. I've altered your FPX to a comment. Feel free to revert if you don't agree. --Cart (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- See other nom. I retain the view that this is clearly an invalid "delist and replace" spread over three nominations. This isn't what we do on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- But what you can do on Commons, Colin, is apologize after have made a mistake in claiming I am not able to nominate delists at the same time as normal nominations. Charles (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Charles, I made a mistake and you have not been inconvenienced beyond pointing out the mistake. Demanding an apology in such circumstances is rather petty, considering you are the one here breaking the clear rules about delisting. An apology will therefore not be forthcoming. We all make mistakes. For example, Charles, when you notified the creator/nominators of these images, you did not link back to the delist nomination, which is required by the rules. There is even a template for doing the talk page notification. Perhaps you could fix that, out of courtesy to them. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am not breaking any rules. I posted a message on their talk pages before submitting the delist nomination. You accused me of "illegal" action which is somewhat more than being "inconvenienced". Charles (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep An FP is not only about technical quality, it is just as much (sometimes even more) about composition and ambience in the photo. The compo in this with the soft light and excellent balance is far superior to the current nom's passport photo style. It deserves to be kept beside the new photo, if its nomination succeeds. I don't think it's constructive to treat FPs like VIs and ask for delists as soon as a new photo of a subject is nominated. --Cart (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep portrait format and background colors differ -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: This nomination is explicitly against the rules and not Commons practice. On Commons, if we take/find a better picture of a subject, we are just happy to nominate the new one. That's what everyone else does, Charles. We don't go around eliminating all the old ones, which have nothing wrong with them. That sort of delist-and-replace belongs on Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC) | 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 Just pointing out that Colin is wrong again. When it comes to the reasons for setting up a delisting nomination, the rules are: Users may at any time create a delisting nomination of an image they believe is no longer good enough. I quote from the procedures: "Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture.". Therefore, if Charles feels this is no longer good enough, he may open a nomination to delist. Whether his opinion should be followed is then up to the voters. Disagreeing with someone about whether an image should retain FP status is fine, but the very fact that there is a delist procedure should tell you that FPs are not intended to stay such forever.--Peulle (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I second that Charles, or any other user, in principle can create delist noms if they wish, as the rules are at the moment. Also that it is up to the community to decide if the image should be deleted. However, the reasons for doing so during these latest delist noms by Charles are a bit murky. I don't think it's good practice (and a bit rude) to start delists while you have a nom of the same subject, but the rules are the same for everyone, so here we are. I think the best, and politest, thing to do would be for Charles to simply withdraw these delist noms, have a think about it, maybe discuss the delisting process on the FPC talk page and perhaps get back to these and/or other delists later. --Cart (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- This was delisted along with a nomination of what Charles considered a better photo. It wasn't delisted because somebody spotted it and went "OMG that is soooo bad, what were they thinking, we have loads of better ones now". This is a great photo. Charles reviewed the existing photos of the species when nominating his (as we should) but instead of just explaining why his new one should be promoted (as everyone else does) he decided to delist two perfectly fine images because "Please compare with nomination below" his is in his opinion better. So it is not an isolated delist (the rules of which you both agree with), but an obvious illegal delist-and-replace (per rules I quote above that forbid it). This photo got 16 solid supports and was speedy promoted only 6 years ago. The resolution is similar to what Charles offers us today (though Jee often offered much higher resolution when he was active here). The delist procedure was, until this summer of madness, a rare event. As I have said, if Charles wants "Delist the competition" to be a standard practice when nominating a new photo of a subject, can he please go get consensus for it and change the rules. -- Colin (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Cart and Charles, I agree that there needs to be a talk:FP discussion about this. However it is still holiday season. I think it would be better to wait till September, when more people are active and can participate in establishing consensus. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea. Charles (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Charles, it was for the best. Things were getting a bit out of hand here. --Cart (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)
Result: 1 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Schwalbenschwanz, Papilio machaon.jpg (delist), not delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 13:05:37
- Info Very little is in focus and the compostion is not great. Please compare with nomination below. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Charles (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Our interpretations of the rules differs. I believe I am entitled to nominate any image for delisting. I have not done an illegal "delist and replace". The community may disagree. And the rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Per my comment on the other/above delist nom, I've changed Colin's FPX to a cmt. Please revert if you don't agree. --Cart (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK if 2+2 is allowed. However, I retain the view that this is clearly an invalid "delist and replace" spread over three nominations. This isn't what we do on Commons. If Charles wants Commons FP to be a place where photographers take a new photo of something and then go around delisting all the previous "inferior" photos of that subject, then please go change the rules. Currently that is explicitly disallowed. -- Colin (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep An FP is not only about technical quality, it is just as much (sometimes even more) about composition. This photo brings out a three-dimensional aspect, something the other photos lack. Having multiple photos of a subject is not only within the rules, it is also very useful to see different aspects of the same thing. I'm only waiting for a blue hour or head on photo of this beautiful butterfly to add to the series. :-) I don't think it's constructive to treat FPs like VIs and ask for delists as soon as a new photo of a subject is nominated. --Cart (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep entirely different photo -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: This nomination is explicitly against the rules and not Commons practice. On Commons, if we take/find a better picture of a subject, we are just happy to nominate the new one. That's what everyone else does, Charles. We don't go around eliminating all the old ones, which have nothing wrong with them. That sort of delist-and-replace belongs on Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC) | 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. |
- @Colin: Why Wikipedia? Even so, there is no need to bring Wikipedia into this. This sort of practice belongs on Commons, over at Commons:Valued image candidates, not here.--Boothsift 18:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boothsift exactly. Charles is a regular at WP FP so I think he confuses the separate purposes of the two projects. WP FP has one featured lead photo in an article, generally, so has to delist and replace it when a better one comes along. Whereas on Commons, we are just happy that someone has taken a new and perhaps better image: more images for people to enjoy and use. No need to go around pissing on the old ones. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I actually had no idea that there could only be one FP of each subject on WP, thanks for the info. So this is just some sort of confusion on Charles' part between the sites. I like Commons' way better, the more the merrier. :-) --Cart (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is no confusion on my part. I understand the different FP rules between Wikipedia and Commons. Unlike Colin and Cart. Wikipedia can and does have more than one FP in an article and frequently more than one FP of the same species. There are multiple FPs of lion, cheetah, elephant, siberian tiger, zebra, meerkat, olive baboon etc. Charles (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like I should read the rules for WP:FP myself instead of relying on secondary info here to get this sorted out. --Cart (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I never said FP can only have one FP. I said "generally". Which is true for I guess probably over 90% of Wikipedia FPs (the very popular animals Charles lists will of course be more likely to have two great photos that could be used in an article). Where we have two photos offering the same "Passport identification" purposes then clearly WP only needs one in the lead and thus only one can be featured. If you want to replace a featured lead, you go through the delist-and-replace process. In fact, Charles's butterflies are a good example of multiple-WP-FP per article, where there may be male and female and mating photos. But other than that, Wikipedia isn't going to have two featured standard-composition female butterfly X's on a flower/rock. Wikipedia has the additional problem that FP's lose their status just because someone removes them from an article: there are three Zebra FPs but only two are in (separate) articles, so one of them will eventually be noticed and demoted. Charles is clearly trying to export the WP concept to Commons, and if he would look at how other people have handled multiple-FPs of a subject over the years, he will note that that isn't what is done here.
- This photo got 16 solid support, so was speedy promoted only 5 years ago. It was taken with a Nikon D800E and quality macro lens, both of which are still a match for contemporary equipment (and indeed greatly exceed the quality most of us use). There's zero reason to demote it on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- This argument is a good argument for a "keep" vote. Not for limiting other users' rights to nominate for delisting.--Peulle (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Peulle, the rules are clear already and already limit what delist is for. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". This is exactly what Charles has done. "Please compare with nomination below" says it all. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Request Charles, could you please be polite and just withdraw these delist noms until all the "fine-print" about how and why delists should be done has been sorted out at the FPC talk page instead of here on the nom page. You can always get back to them later if you feel strongly about them. --Cart (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain How to vote on this? Sure, solidarity with Charles. Agree with Peulle. But what flood of vulgarity on the other side, once again . Commons:Talk page guidelines#A few more tips on polite discussion. And now Cart tells Charles to be polite? That's the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Well said. Charles (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Result: 1 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 01:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Ummidnp and uploaded by Ummidnp - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 01:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 01:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Do you know the whole exposure time? -- -donald- (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I see a lot of chromatic aberrations. --Granada (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The whole photo including tables and chairs look very unnatural. It looks like under a shining sun at night --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Good, not new idea but not ideal in this case. The furniture and the footprints are very disturbing. With the light I agree with Wolfgang Moroder.--Ermell (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per Moroder and Ermell, and I wonder why this image even was promoted to QI with such strong (and probably easy to remove/reduce) CAs.--Aristeas (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Neutral Taking a 3rd look at the image, I see that certainly there is some “wow” effect about this image, which gives a fresh impression of the Annapurna region, and both the CAs and the exposure (overexposed?!) can be improved/repaired. So I change my vote to “neutral” for now, and will vote for this image if some of the issues mentioned here are addressed with success, to make the image look more natural/realistic. --Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)- Comment I like the idea, including the table and the chairs, but it is a bit overdone here. It even looks overexposed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thank everyone for the reviews!--Boothsift 17:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 22:36:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 22:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 22:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I can't bring myself to support this image since it's so similar to another image in the same series, which was promoted quite recently.--Peulle (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the notice--Boothsift 17:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Opinel N°10 Carbon w bread on wood.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 22:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
- Info French Opinel pocket/folding knife with bread; showing the typical stains of a carbon steel blade – created by Chianti - uploaded by Chianti - nominated by Chianti -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting subject, but the strong reflection on the blade is distracting, and the composition with the bread is not very good. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for your opinion. A technically perfect photo of these objects without blade reflection exists with File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg, but it lacks wow. The light-shadow distribution here is deliberately chosen to highlight the blade, the correct word is therefore not "distracting" but attracting the eye of the viewer. It is intended to be as "distracting" as the sheets in this image. In fact, this photo thoroughfully composed with larger dark parts in the top left and lighter parts in bottom right, with the smaller lighter spot on the bread crust bottom left and the darker spot top right for balance. The locking mechanism of the knive was placed in the middle of the diagonal of the latter two – a diagonal that puts the highlighted blade on the overall darker side of said diagonale and the darker part of the knive (the handle) in the overall lighter "half" of the picture. Even the shape of the bread was intentional to "reverse repeat" the blade point and curve. I hope this helped you to understand the idea of the image and why I chose it from many others of a series; also this was a short introduction to basic and classic principles of composition of Natures Mortes. There's some more like a dark "L" contrasting with a lighter "L" (as I would call it), feel free to ask if you want to know more. To make it more easy for you I made an annotated image here referring to my comments, which also may help you in the future when it comes to judging photos regarding composition. Regards, Chianti (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- You would have much better chance with exposure like File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg. I suggest you try again with a clean table, and different compositions with the bread. Personally I would like to see the whole bread. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose According to Opinel's website this is an outdoor knife, suitable "to work difficult materials, trim branches". It would seem more appropriate, for cutting bread indoors, to use their bread knife which has serrations. While I appreciate your explanation of the care taken over the composition of the photo, ultimately the opinion of whether the photo works is in the eye of the beholder, and if Yann finds the reflection distracting, then you can't just argue that away. For non-obvious photographs, it is better to explain your work up-front than have to potentially defend it after being opposed/misunderstood. Still, one can't please everyone. I think the long thin aspect-ratio of the framing is peculiar and not ideal, both in terms of composition but also utility. It seems more the photo has been cropped around a knife-shaped rectangle rather than the objects arranged within a more conventional frame. The perpendicular arrangement of the blade to the viewer is not dynamic. The knife is resting propped against the bread as though someone where taking a photograph of it, rather than its normal resting position of flat-side-up. The overall effect is a bit contrived.
- The photo of the person cutting bread on Opinel's breadknife webpage is imo a better image of what is after all a tool that is designed to be used. If one is determined to make a still-life involving bread and a knife, then some more elements would help, such as additional slices, and perhaps the food that is to be placed on top. We do tend to prefer some educational utility for the image, rather than still-life art for its own sake (though it has a place). So you'd get more support if it was more clearly educational. For example, food photography of delicious bread and toppings making me hungry for it, or hand-tool photography showing the proper knife being actively used to cut bread. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have several of these myself, I carry at least one with me all the time, and I use them indoor and outdoor. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support I like the composition, it works well for me, and I appreciate the skill involved. For a more clear FP, however, I'd prefer to see a shot that's a little bit more dynamic - for example, as Colin suggests, a photo showing the knife being used to cut bread. This is a good still-life and overall I think deserves a feature, but it's not the kind of images that grabs you straight away. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I was going to support, as this is way better than the other photo in terms of color and contrast, i.e. it makes you want to have a slice of the bread, until I read Colin's oppose, and I just can't unthink it, so to speak. The more you look at it after reading, the more you'd want to see a serrated knife in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Per Colin--Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Kaupanger stavkyrkje 2018 take 3.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info I think the composition of this image is excellent, in terms of how natural framing is used to highlight the subject. created by Bep - uploaded by Bep - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support for the totality of the composition, irrespective of the effect of pixel-peeping at the dark areas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very intimate, you chose the perfect subject for this lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The framing makes the church looks like it's blushing from being caught in something it wasn't supposed to do. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 09:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Sweden
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wow, good composition, nice reflection! --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very photogenic subject, clearly distinct composition from the existing two FPs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent image when I thought another good one wasn't possible of this station, and one that makes me feel my regret at not being able to go to Wikimania this year that much more keenly (This may, in fact, set a record for "FP taken at Wikimania" getting that status soonest after the actual event). Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 07:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I really like this a lot. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I checked the category as I thought we had a similar FP (other than the staircases). I did find a very similar photo and also found File:Rådhuset metro station May 2014.jpg which is nice with the speeding train and stationary man (though the technical quality isn't at FP). -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I was also pretty sure that a similar picture was already FP... clearly Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for mentioning it, it is still one of my favorite photos but unfortunately not sharp.--ArildV (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per King and Daniel, excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Info A big thank you to ArildV for helping us discover the beauty of Stockholm's metro system that evening and to Rhododendrites for letting me use his tripod for this shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I think I recognize the station.--ArildV (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Glad to see this worked out. I don't think I have any prospective third FPCs from that outing, but it was great to see these places and I'm looking forward to going through through the shots from the rest of the trip. — Rhododendrites talk | 21:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question Frank: How did you manage to have 10 people on the train keep (nearly) still for 4 seconds? -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- They are Swedes, not very lively folks. Up here we learn to conserve energy for the upcoming cold season. --Cart (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Greenland 467 (35130903436).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 08:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
- Info created by Markus Trienke - uploaded by Спасимир - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good wow factor but obviously the file title needs modifying.--Peulle (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 07:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support a bit noisy and per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 22:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Forgot to vote on this earlier. Not bad, maybe a bit noisy but good resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 07:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
- Info created by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra (Flickr) - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks OK, but I'm not seeing the big wow factor here. It looks a bit ordinary, like a photo any tourist could take on any given day.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, it's a good photo and well-composed but I'm afraid it just doesn't wow me very much. I think it was worth a try here though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Mo wow and for me too bright --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Michielverbeek: Is the term you're looking for by any chance "no wow"?--Boothsift 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry, typing error --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow.--Vulphere 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow--Boothsift 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Asahi Breweries headquarters building with the Asahi Flame and Skytree at blue hour with full moon, Sumida-ku, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 03:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Japan
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good capture of the moon. Can you fix the timestamp of the photo. According to The Photographer's Ephemeris, the moon would be in position at 19:06 rather than 17:06, and the Blue Hour wouldn't have started that early either. Technically, the Full Moon was the Monday evening, rather than the Sunday evening ;-). -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support It's like the building is pointing at the moon. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- These abstract shapes evoke me Joan Miró :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition with the flame pointing at the moon. Pity you didn't blend it to preserve the details on the moon though... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. Do you mean I could have taken two pictures, one darker than the other, so as to recover the highlights? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A bit per King. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - A bizarre architectural ensemble and maybe a bit dystopic to my taste, but an excellent and well-composed document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
File:20131013-22. Kokneses pils, rudens.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info Koknese Castle, a partially-submerged castle complex in Koknese, Latvia, dating from the thirteenth century. created by KarlitoWiki - uploaded by KarlitoWiki - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice find. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: gorgeous colours and nice composition, but too soft --СССР (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per CCCP - also, I would have liked to see more of the reflection in the water for better balance.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition, great light and colours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice colors, but there's no shortage of autumn FPs and we don't have to promote one that falls slightly short on technical standards. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose There is autumn mood, but otherwise not much that would make me say wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 02:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Very colourful but not much to see.--Ermell (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Per A.Savin --Boothsift 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I'm surprised, since I really loved the composition, but it seems unlikely that this will get enough support to cross the bar. Cmao20 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Ansberg Blickrichtung Süden 120324.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info View from the Ansberg in Franconian Switzerland southward. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I'd be interesting to see the frame divided exactly into 3 parts of the same hight (trees, mountains, sky) but this is still working for me. Simple, pretty, nice colours. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Idyllic. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Nice but remove the big dust spot and the minor spots in the sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nevertheless--Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Pretty, but the composition doesn't work for me. The hills would, but the trees kind of just sit there and interfere, so it seems like two separate ideas in two layers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Ikan. We often use foreground to lead into the distance, but here they seem to form a barrier. I tried a crop like Podzemnik considered (e.g. 16:9 excluding bottom) which makes the trees a layer of fire at the bottom, but still unconvinced. We have so many layered mountain views at FP, this one isn't quite working. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the reverse leading to infinity. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. The idea is good, but I think a 4:3 aspect ratio is not the most effective way to convey it. You can either go wide (at least 8:5) to emphasize the horizontal lines, or make it a vertical composition to emphasize the different layers (on this particular image that might not work so well as there are not enough layers to do that, but I'm saying in general for these types of compositions). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, and no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin and Kind of Hearts -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per King of Hearts. The foreground covering nearly half of the frame is not a composition that works for me here. Btw, there’s at least one really HUGE dust spot in the sky, and there seems to be considerable colour banding and sharpened noise speckles … tut tut, I am pixelpeeping again. --Kreuzschnabel 23:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Switzerland
- Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Very high resolution, unfortunately there are very obvious stitching errors on the 2 bridges-- Basile Morin (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)- Oppose for now per Basile, extraordinary resolution but the errors need to be fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed, the stitching errors are still visible, as CCCP points out. Have added notes to show the worst-affected areas. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support now that errors are fixed. It's a shame that we've still got that sudden transition between the sharp and the unsharp area, but that's something you only see if you pixel peep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Composition does not work for me. I'd need more sky, maybe more to the right or something.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- Comment: the errors are still present; would gladly support otherwise. --СССР (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per Basile and СССР.--Ermell (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- Oppose I agree the composition isn't working. Just a bit jumbled. And there are still large stitching errors and it looks like some of your frames are blurry, which isn't fixable unless you have more frames to choose. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I see the image has been changed considerably, including the composition. Wolfgang Moroder, you should really ping those who have voted already after making such big changes -- this is no longer the same photo. Unfortunately the problems with stitching remain and aren't minor. The biggest remaining problem is angles and verticles. Look at the nearest bridge right-hand-side. Compare File:Teufelsbrücke (Devil's Bridge) high in the Swiss Alps.JPG. The upper line of bricks should fall at an angle (the edge is not vertical) but is a straight line, whereas in this photo is is seriously bowed and changes direction. The lower two sections of bricks should have a vertical edge, but here slope considerably. Compare also the right hand side of the photo with the railings and little tunnel -- the vertical walls and rails aren't vertical. There are quite a lot of blurry areas which mostly are hard to spot if I downsize 50% to 24MP, but aren't so much a reason to oppose than to wonder why upload at full res if the quality isn't there. In my experience a hand-held panorama is possible to FP level, but a big gamble and I take many extra frames to try to ensure success. Here I don't think the gamble succeeded, and a wide-angle lens would have created a more reliably accurate picture. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The perfect photo does not exist. Who cares for the vertical lines, angles and rails if you almost don't notice them. This is not an architectural photo where perfect vertical lines are requested. But, if you don't like the water, the bridges and the rocks, the misty sky and the overall atmosphere of this photo as I and some others do, just feel free to oppose, no problem. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that the perfect architectural standards should not necessarily apply to a landscape photo. And the composition has improved with the edit. I just don't think it is among our finest, with these flaws: we are not short of landscape FPs. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The perfect photo does not exist. Who cares for the vertical lines, angles and rails if you almost don't notice them. This is not an architectural photo where perfect vertical lines are requested. But, if you don't like the water, the bridges and the rocks, the misty sky and the overall atmosphere of this photo as I and some others do, just feel free to oppose, no problem. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done @Colin: , @Peulle: , @Boothsift: , @Daniel Case: Thanks for the comments and support. I uploaded a new version without (I hope) stitching errors and different crop. Please feel free to revise your support. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment
There are still significant errors in this third version, at the top right corner, three long black oblique lines. I did not inspect the whole image deeply because it's quite a thankless job to look for such technical flaws with so large images,but I think at least these obvious mistakes should be fixed-- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Power lines -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)- Comment Not an error, those are overhead power lines.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - You fixed the compositional problem very effectively, in a different way than I thought of. Kudos! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose At least one of the stitched frames is unsharp, and some minor stitching error, see notes --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose blurry frame(s) spoils it. --Ivar (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ivar. Really fine idea, composition AND lighting, but the blurry frame covering most of the top bridge, along with serious stitching flaws, spoils it for me, betraying the general high resolution – think of a great orchestra with but one musician producing wrongful notes. They are not going to win any prize. --Kreuzschnabel 23:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info Connection stairs between T-centralen metro station and the new Stockholm City commuter station. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support —Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The complete opposite, colour-wise, of Frank's equally good picture below. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Like something from Picasso's Blue Period. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Only negative is the blurred escalator stairs look a bit like a interference on an old CRT monitor and are thus a bit annoying at pixel peeping. -- Colin (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 22:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 21:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. Another winter image from New Zealand - this one displays Castle Hill Peak seen from Red Peak, Torlesse Range. I personally like the light, the composition and the freezing vibes coming from the stones on the right. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support but personally I think this might be a candidate for BW conversion - it's all about the lines and shapes, not the colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Now I understand the sort of scenery that inspired that enigmatic but absolutely jawdroppingly beautiful final shot (and onesheet graphic) of The Quiet Earth. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Truly awesome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 04:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent light. Striking -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, though the middle/left foreground is a bit uninteresting -- not sure how it would be possible to eliminate that with a different viewpoints. You could always just Photoshop in a big orange North Face tent there :-). -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant, I can almost feel the frost. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 18:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I wish to see more on the left and on the right. --Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--ArildV (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 06:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very gentle. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support A lovely, restful composition, but I think the sharpness could be better. Cmao20 (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per others, and the lighting is very good. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Dreamtime photo. --Cart (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 15:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family Malvaceae.
- Info Flower bud of an Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’ covered with raindrops. A nice double fixed (sterile) hollyhock.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Fabulous Seven Pandas (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very good sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I might like a bit more room on the bottom and right, depending on what else was there, but the resolution, such that we can see all those little hairs, is amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Very nice picture and great quality, but the red dots in the left upper corner are disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Microcentrum retinerve Mex2019.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 13:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
- Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Nice wings (or should we say leaves?), but not the head out of focus. The framing is also not optimal in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral per Basile, not bad though and an interesting subject. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes wings are good, but head is not in focus and the framing is odd. Charles (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Piri Ries Cairo Map.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 18:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
- Info created by Piri Ries - uploaded by MichelBakni - nominated by MichelBakni -- MichelBakni (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Supportباسم (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm... no, I'm not too wowed. The resolution is not very high and I'm not impressed by the level of detail (although I'm not sure how much of that is from the actual drawing). Oppose --Peulle (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but, interesting as this is, it doesn't match up to some recent digitisations in terms of image quality and amount of detail preserved. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Info It‘s actually Piri Reis. —Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Shortcomings evident even at thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Playing in the Nuba mountains.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 00:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Africa
- Info created by Marco Gualazzini - uploaded by Marco Gualazzini - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 00:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine (✉) 00:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- The ground in the left background appears to have a tilt, but the right foreground looks level, I so I think that the photo doesn't need a tilt correction, but others are welcome to comment regarding this point. --Pine (✉) 01:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support awesome. Good to have something like that on commons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I asked the uploader if he could upload the photo in its full size. But for me it's already FP - kind of an image where you don't pixel peep. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A unique capture. Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- S for Support and "Superb"! -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly tilted in ccw direction Poco2 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral too much in shadow. I don't see what's so special about this photo. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I really do want to know what's going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 07:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
- Info African leopard awaking from nap. Leopard collection lacks sharp images with face detail. Upload etc. by Axeltschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 09:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support There are four FPs of the African leopard on Commons: this, which I wouldn't have voted for as the colour balance seems unnatural and the contrast is too high, this quite different action-shot by Poco, this which is a great photo but a rather unfortunate specimen, and this which is a clear FP but isn't sharp on the face. Therefore I think this photo fills a niche we don't have, per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support-- Agree cmao. I'd delist the one with the off colour balance. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice, but really very small --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe that your comment is not really fair, Uoaei1, this is not a zoo picture Poco2 17:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Poco2! No, definitely no zoo photo. My arm was getting heavy from holding the 600mm until the leopard finished his nap under the thorn bush and looked up --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 05:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
- Info Saint John Altarpiece at the Dominican church St. Nicholas in Friesach, Carinthia, Austria. Elder St. Veit Workshop (Lienhart Workshop), 1500–1512. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Extraordinary detail. Cmao20 (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Grand'Rue in Colmar 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Very weak oppose A lot to recommend it, but I think it would look better in stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Were it not for the cars, this could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree the cars are a big negative and likely need to get up early to avoid them but that's what the postcard photographers do. Wrt looking like a painting, yes this doesn't look like a photo. It has been overprocessed, with a very heavy hand on the Lightroom sliders. Compare File:Colmar (31617330537).jpg. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The cars, the cars, why the cars? --Boothsift 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this is a fine composition, including the cars, but Colin's point about processing gives me pause. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
File:North-west facade of the Castle of Chambord 03.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality, and I like that it shows the castle from a different angle to usual, but I think too much of the image is in shadow. I'm also not overly sold on the people and I think it would have been better if you could have waited for them to leave. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was lucky that so few tourists were in the picture. This is the Chambord castle, where is always the tourists. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support I don't mind the tourists; I've been one and they're not taking away from the image. However, I think you could crop a little tighter to get rid of some of the distracting elements of the foreground (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support per Daniel Case.--Vulphere 03:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much of the foreground is in shadow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per King of Hearts --Boothsift 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info Las Lajas Sanctuary is a basilica church located in the southern Department of Nariño, municipality of Ipiales, Colombia. The place is a popular pilgrimage location since the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1754. The first shrine was built by 1750 and was replaced by a bigger one in 1802 including a bridge over the canyon of the Guáitara River. The present temple, of Gothic Revival style, was built between 1916 and 1949. If successful this one would be the third FP of this subject following this FP and POTY finalist and this FP. This candidate just became FP on English Wikipedia. Poco2 10:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 10:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: strong purple fringing in the trees on the edge of the canyon. --СССР (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- СССР: is that the reason you oppose? To be honest I hardly see some CA in some branches of the tree on the top right, but nothing I'd call "strong". Is that the area you talk about? --Poco2 16:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's the worst on the top left, actually, I added a note. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- СССР: Still surprised to categorize that as "strong CA", but anyhow, it's gone. The right side is also "fixed" since I've cropped it Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's neither gone nor looking any different, actually. --СССР (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'll be home tonight and will check it again with a better and calibrated screen. If there's actually room for improvement regarding the CA, I'll upload a new version latest tomorrow. Poco2 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- СССР: New version uploaded. I checked though the former version on my usual screen and still cannot share the severity of CA traces here Poco2 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'll be home tonight and will check it again with a better and calibrated screen. If there's actually room for improvement regarding the CA, I'll upload a new version latest tomorrow. Poco2 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's neither gone nor looking any different, actually. --СССР (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- СССР: Still surprised to categorize that as "strong CA", but anyhow, it's gone. The right side is also "fixed" since I've cropped it Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's the worst on the top left, actually, I added a note. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The angle is not as striking as the former POTY finalist, but the resolution is better (I suspect the other image is cropped from a wide-angle shot to minimise distortion at the edges). Overall the composition is sufficiently different for a new FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I think this could work with some of the clouds cropped off the top (and corresponding crops to the bottom and sides to better center the church), As it is I feel like putting my hand to my forehead to shield my eyes as I view this. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Daniel Case: I've applied a cropped overall but rather than doing it the same way at each side, I did it considering the content Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose it's good, but existing FP-s with same subject are much better. --Ivar (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Ivar. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Ivar. Yann (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Bonnet Macaque DSC 1125.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 18:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created & uploaded by Shankar Raman - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support 10 years old picture but still stands out for me. Big wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Shot at the right time -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per others. (Minor point: I think it's evident the monkey is in fact yawning, so I wouldn't use scare quotes around that word in the file description.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Really poor quality. Nothing in focus. Look at the teeth. Charles (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support Not perfectly crisp, yet not particularly bad either. I wouldn't go as far to say "really poor quality". And it's surely an unusual photo. --A.Savin 02:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 17:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
- Info created by ESO/INAF-VST/OmegaCAM - OmegaCen/Astro-WISE/Kapteyn Institute, uploaded by Stas1995, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Extraordinary. Worth viewing in full size. Cmao20 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Aasish Shah (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Most of my 20MPx night shots are noiser than this :) --Podzemnik (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:23:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
- Info created by Wendelin Jacober - uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 18:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 18:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Blown highlights, looks overprocessed unfortunately, CAs and strong chroma noise. Perspectives could also be better at the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice location, but technically flawed per Basile. --Peulle (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Info I managed to fix it up a bit and add some more info to it, not sure if it's enough though. Anyway, here is the file if you want it. It's a cool place and a huge file so some imperfections might be forgiven. --Cart (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It was going so well until the right third ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The resolution is great, but the processing isn't. The left-hand side looks too contrast-y and the right-hand side by comparison is far too bright, overexposed in many places. Maybe we could have done better if we had access to the RAW files, but seeing it's a Flickr image, it isn't likely that we can get hold of them. Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thank you guys, this nomination was kind of rushed --Boothsift 03:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Very good, but the tips of the petals at the left show some halos from focus stacking --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Tried to fix it. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sharp, little noise, good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This focus stacked image is not successful in my view. You should have included the entire leaf, with enough frames. Now it looks strange, photographically, because it gives the impression something went wrong in the technique. The depth of field appears to be large, then suddenly a rupture cuts the leaf in two parts, one fully sharp and one very blurry. Not elegant in my opinion. The colors are nice and the composition okay, but not this distracting and incomprehensible corner -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Nepal
- Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: needs perspective correction --СССР (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
* Neutral Perspective correction required.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)- Support.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- @СССР and Famberhorst: Done Thank you -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition looks disorganized to me, with the corners of the temple on the right being cut off and the stone structures on the bottom not really coming together to direct the viewer's eyes to the golden temple. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the crops on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - good click from such a narrow place.--Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Aasish Shah (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Although cropping (cut off on the right) is a bit issue here, but overall looks good to me. IMO, sometimes photography is difficult from such a narrow place. I think, we can keep it. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Something was not working in this picture at first sight in my view, then King and Ikan put words on it: the right crop, yes. Not okay, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sharp from foreground to background, and dispite a lot of people, tourists are not disturbing. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Petroglifos de Las Labradas 13.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 18:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Gzzz -- Gzzz zz 18:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Gzzz zz 18:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Unattractive lighting (rocks are too dark), and lack of balance between the foreground rocks, ocean (not enough), and sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose+1.--Peulle (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, a good idea but I'm not keen on the lighting. Cmao20 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Gzzz zz 20:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
File:2016 12 ZooStralsund Löwe IMG 1553.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 13:56:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
- Info created and uploaded by Daniela Kloth - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I noticed too late that the image in GFDL 1.2-only - what a pitty! --D-Kuru (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 19:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info Panoramic view of the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Peninsula, South Africa. The Cape was believed to be the southern tip of Africa, based on the misbelief that it's the dividing point between Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The southernmost point of Africa is Cape Agulhas about 150 kilometres (93 mi) to the east-southeast, but this spot is still a cool one :) c/u/n by me, --Poco2 19:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 19:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question Nice view. Would you be keen to share a bit of know-how? :) I'm quite curious how you made the horizon so straight. Besides that, there are visible copyediting places (see the notes). --Podzemnik (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment A challenging subject, not only in terms of the horizon, but also on the waves. I have detected an inconsistency. --Milseburg (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Just a nitpick but wouldn't the description be more precise if it was something like "The western/-erly view from Cape of Good Hope" as, technically speaking, the actual cape is pretty much behind of the position you shot this from (where the lighthouses etc are)? -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I've fixed the stitching issue around the waves (Milseburg), sharpened one frame (Iifar), removed a editing line (Podzemnik), cleaned a bit of the area over the horizon on the left (Podzemnik) and improved the description (KennyOMG). Poco2 18:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC) PD: and the line at the top right border (Iifar) along with dust spots Poco2 20:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I would like very much to like it as it captures that end-of-the-earth ne plus ultra feeling that is much in evidence around Cape Town, but it's unsharp, seemingly slightly shaken, in the middle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose sorry Poco, it's a beautiful view but there are just too many unsharp areas for me. The light is also a bit harsh on the right, and overall I think you have better panoramas. Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 14:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg (delist), not delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 11:33:52
- Info I don't think during the original nomination it was considered that this was upscaled aka zoomed in by x1.6, English Wikipedia users did note this issue at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Europa_(Mosaic) and unanimously (except uploader) rejected it in favor of the originally sized one File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic (alt).jpg, as per the NASA page states it's 2300 x 1700.
- It could also be argued that an upscale is a major digital change, so should've been added with Template:Retouched image before being listed as a candidate, as per FPC guide.
- As zooming in unnecessarily decreases the overall quality of the image, it is unlikely to meet several points of COM:IG, such as noise, color and editing. This featured version suffers from severe chromatic aberrations and a jagged planet edge which the original does not. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- BevinKacon (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist because upscaling is pointless as it does nothing except adds file size without improvement in the actual detail preserved. That said, before this goes any further, may I suggest a delist-and-replace instead, replacing this one with the original non-upscaled image? The original still meets minimum size requirements and is by far the sharpest and best quality image of Europa on the internet. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep@BevinKacon: @Cmao20: @Daniel Case: Much of the commentary above is inaccurate. In the case of the "original nomination", the image had not been upsampled at that point, and the nomination failed, with one respondent as well as the moderator commenting on the supposedly inadequate size of the image. In the second nomination in Commons, after upsampling, the upscaling was prominently mentioned prior to the voting in the first line of the description, as follows:
- "Uploader's notes: the original NASA TIFF image has been modified by increasing linear pixel dimensions by a factor of 1.6 (to bring out fine detail), sharpening and conversion to JPEG format."
- Given that, the template would have been largely redundant. Note that the non-upsampled version is now listed separately.
- In the case of the Wikipedia vote, there were three votes in favor of the upsampled version (The NMI User, myself, and Bammesk), not just one (the latter voted for both versions), and four votes in favor of the non-upsampled version (again counting Bammesk). The non-upsampled version was promoted to FP short of the required five votes, so due process was not followed in that case. Due process was followed in the Commons vote, with 11 votes in favor and one opposed. What justification can there be to reverse this decision?
- As for the supposed "severe" defects in the upsampled version, please demonstrate the difference with screen captures. Regarding the upsampling being "pointless", on the contrary, it was combined with sharpening to make the fine geological detail more easily visible, as I will demonstrate in a subsequent post. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please carefully examine, at full scale, this image: Comparison of mosaics
- which contains corresponding sections of the 2 mosaics, if you want to try to understand why I or someone else might have the temerity to upsample and sharpen an image. By way of introduction, the ice-covered surface of Europa is covered with an extraordinary set of fascinating geological features, including the so-called lineae, linear features that form on a variety of scales via a tectonic process. Now, please look at the smallest lineae and other features visible in the images. From my perspective, the ability to see and appreciate the profusion of small lineae is greatly enhanced in the 1.6x upsampled image. These features of course are real, not artifacts. A lot of the lineae that are easily visible from a normal viewing distance at the larger scale are only visible at the smaller scale if you press your nose up to the monitor, and in some cases not even then. Since these geologic features are, from my perspective, and the perspective of others interested in planetary geology, the most interesting aspect of the image, the value gained in making them much more easily visible outweighs any cost incurred in terms of greater chromatic aberration and/or more jagged edges. It is normal for editing processes to have both benefits and costs, and the net result is a benefit in this case in my opinion. Given that the upsampled version got 11 votes and went on to become a POTY finalist while the non-upsampled version only got 6 and was not promoted in Commons, it seems some others agree with me. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2018, I don't think it would be a great idea to delist this picture. --Boothsift 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per others. (And shouldn't the "oppose" votes be "keep", so as not to confuse things?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Info WolfmanSF and Boothsift per Ikan's comment, could you please use the 'keep' or 'delist' in this nomination. 'Oppose' or 'support' are for normal FCP noms. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry but I don't buy these arguments. Although due process was technically followed in the commons vote, the nominator did not mention in the nomination that the image was upsampled, and nor did the voters appear to be aware of this. Therefore, I do think the criteria for a delist nomination are satisfied, and that it's appropriate to ask us to think again. WolfmanSF, I understand now why you decided to upsample, but to me this is an argument only for keeping the upsampled version on Commons, not for featuring it instead of the original. Ultimately all the detail is there in the original photo, and upsampling could easily be done client-side if anyone wishes to view the lineae in higher resolution. Therefore my vote remains to delist, and ideally to replace with the original. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, which "criteria are satisfied'? Where does it state that a nominator must mention image edits in the nomination, in addition to in the image description? One of the voters (the only negative vote in the 11-1 vote) did mention, and provided a link to, the alternate (original, non-upsampled) version. There is also a rule, "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support", and the upsampled version got 11 votes while the original got 6. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the feasibility of anyone else making similar edits to better view the detail, it's obviously possible, but the proportion of WP and Commons readers who would have the software, experience and initiative to do so is vanishingly small. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per others.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep IMO a precious image with adequate quality. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Result: 3 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --A.Savin 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
File:SenatorWetmoreInAutomobile retouched.jpg (delist), delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:11:38
- Info Since a higher quality version is now featured. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist More or less a procedural delist. Cmao20 (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist .--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Replaced then delist - For the record, this is the second part of a {{Delistandreplace}} nomination, immediately following this one -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist --Yann (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist --Peulle (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist --Cayambe (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist --Boothsift 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 20:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 00:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. The panorama displays Porters Pass, 'the third-highest point on the South Island's state highway network'. I quite like that the state highway crosses the whole image - from the point where I'm standing it's probably the best point where to take a picture of the highway from. Snowy Ben More, the highest point of Big Ben Range, is a nice bonus. -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support You even manage to make a highway look good. --Cart (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cart, this is pretty great. Cmao20 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 17:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Vulpes vulpes Mallnitz 01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 05:54:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Canidae_(Canids)
- Info Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in High Tauern National Park, Carinthia, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great pose. :) --Peulle (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The fox looks like it just woke up :) Also, interesting to see it so high in the mountains. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 16:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support NICE --D-Kuru (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Astounding. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Close-up portrait of an old woman.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2019 at 18:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by aunhtet0, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support This tells a story. This old lady seems to have a strong character. -- Yann (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly I can see why you nominated it, but we have several pictures of similar kinds of subjects such as this, this or this. In comparison, this one doesn't seem particularly unusual or outstanding, not to me anyway. The story it tells, that of resilience in the face of age and (potentially) hardship, has, for me, been expressed many times before in better pictures than this one. I wouldn't be surprised if this does well nonetheless, though. Cmao20 (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question If the author is not known, can we really be sure that the picture is freely licensed? --A.Savin 23:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I also wondered about that, so I searched but I didn't find any older or bigger copy. I don't doubt now that the license is OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I found the author. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Could you amend the nomination to include the photographer's name and give them due credit here. Then I'm sure this little Q/A about authorship could be deleted. -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done Yann (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao20. I don't really understand the "old person with lines in their face" link with "strong character". You get lines from smoking and from sun damage from being outdoors a lot. Nothing to do with character. The capture, with her looking off camera and her mouth open with no teeth to smile with, seems unflattering, and not special enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Agree with Yann's review, but this potential "strong character" is not something that particularly conquers me here. I like the wrinkles, but her facial expression is neither very clear, hospitable or prodigal. Added to this, the landscape format for this portrait, cutting the chin and the forehead, doesn't add anything to the composition in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cmao here--Boothsift 05:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao and Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 15:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
- Info created by Don - uploaded by Don - nominated by Don -- I have also uploaded a more traditional viewpoint as an alternative. Don (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Don (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Info The alternative photo mentioned by Don is: Farr 40 sailboat racing off Newport Beach Alt.
- Hello Don and welcome back to FPC. Unfortunately the system with codes and Bots and everything is not designed for nominating an "Alt" the way you did, so I've tweaked the code for you. An Alt is almost always just another version of the original nomination, like a cropped or otherwise fixed version. You are very welcome to add the other photo in another nom, just remember only two at a time. --Cart (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I very much like the unconvential viewpoint of this one, but the deck of the boat is blown out. I'm not sure whether that matters too much, as it's probably close to white to begin with, but I also think it could be sharper considering that the resolution isn't as high as many similar shots. The other image would unfortunately be an oppose from me, as I much prefer the viewpoint in this one. Cmao20 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the idea of this one, but even if the deck weren't severely posterized I'd still find the shadow at the bottom distracting. I'm sure there's an FP along these lines waiting to be taken. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel--Boothsift 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Don (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2019 at 14:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Aerostats
- Info created by and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 14:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 14:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Interesting idea, but I find personally that the text on the balloons unfortunately spoils what could otherwise be a very engaging abstract shot of lines, shapes and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao20, boring text. And not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Something similar could work for me, unfortunately the balloons are blue, some different colour would make it more interesting. A stronger sky would help, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I think it might work with a lot of the top cropped down (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, can't do this at the moment; Internet seems slow. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll try it with a crop of around 20 percent within the next days. --XRay talk 04:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was able to get it on the image page. Take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll try it with a crop of around 20 percent within the next days. --XRay talk 04:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, can't do this at the moment; Internet seems slow. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Info I made the crop suggested by Daniel - thank you. It's made by the crop tool. --XRay talk 05:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Would be better if the text were better--Boothsift 05:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I think it is better. Thank you for your reviews. --XRay talk 08:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
File:2013-09-19 14-30-57-collegiale-thann-PA00085696.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 13:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
- Info created & uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Interesting motif, sharp at lower but still high resolution (12.7 megapixels). IMO marginally overexposed, though, as the details at the bottom are slightly too washed-out. Cmao20 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Agree that the brightness is too high (I appreciate some elements of the stonework have been cleaned and are brighter than others). Lacking embedded colour profile. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Really gorgeous motif. I'll see if ComputerHotline addresses any of the comments above, as I'd like to be able to support this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral, per above comments. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose Really a gorgeous motif, the composition is OK, but details should be sharper: the image is not as crisp as this motif deserves. Looks like the lens did not resolve details fine enough to take full advantage of the resolution of the sensor. --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)- Aristeas please note this is a 64MP stitched panorama, composed of many frames taken by the camera. ComputerHotline has chosen not to downsize the result, whereas some others do. There is an impressive amount of detail captured here, even if the result looks a bit soft if you pixel-peep. The lens/sensor resolving concern should really be reserved for equipment reviews IMO. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping the increasing resolution of sensors perversely means we are less satisfied with the results at 100% even though the actual overall image is better and more detailed. This image contains more detail than any normal 24MP camera could capture in a single frame even with a great lens. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, so I delete my vote. Sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Aristeas please note this is a 64MP stitched panorama, composed of many frames taken by the camera. ComputerHotline has chosen not to downsize the result, whereas some others do. There is an impressive amount of detail captured here, even if the result looks a bit soft if you pixel-peep. The lens/sensor resolving concern should really be reserved for equipment reviews IMO. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping the increasing resolution of sensors perversely means we are less satisfied with the results at 100% even though the actual overall image is better and more detailed. This image contains more detail than any normal 24MP camera could capture in a single frame even with a great lens. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 11:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other land vehicles
- Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cart (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Quite good, but it would be even better if you had moved the bike a bit to the right. The stairs are quite distracting here IMHO. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, even if the bike has a 'cart', it's not mine. Here you don't touch an unknown person's bike unless you intend to steal it. :-) I like that it's close to the stairs. You can imagine the owner getting off the bike, continue up the stairs and in through the door. It gives momentum to the image. --Cart (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Bikes are to be photographed with the chain ring in front. :) --Granada (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sharp, nice background. Looks like the sort of photo you might find in a magazine. Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too ordinary for me. I expect some kind of emotion when looking to a solid FP and it wasn't the case, sorry cart, Poco2 17:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Poco a Poco.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Cmao20. I just looked at it and thought "Yay, that's sweet". --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite nice idea with the dominating white but with the light and the composition something is missing.--Ermell (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, it is just a bicycle --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like it. Nicely framed, discreet grey tones and it tells a story. Might work in B&W, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Way too ordinary, there are plenty of bicycle pics--Boothsift 05:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Time to put this to rest. Thanks all for the reviews. --Cart (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 18:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
- Info The marina near the town center of Öregrund in Sweden, looking north to the Bothnian Sea. Had the pleasure of visiting there last week. It's a beautiful old fishing town with a lot of history and tourism, so I'm surprised we have no QI/FP at all for it. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites talk | 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much empty water in the middle. It feels like the left and right of the composition are not connected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per King --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose KOH makes a valid point Boothsift 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites talk | 16:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 15:58:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Ciconiidae_(Storks)
- Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Quite a lot of easily-correctible chromatic aberration at the left of the frame. Otherwise I like this. Cmao20 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also I agree with Colin, you often seem to link to categories that don't actually exist. This also needs to be fixed before I can support. Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Fischer.H, all 15 of your nominations at FP have had problems with the FP category, which is required to link to a page and section in our FP collection, that actually exists, so that reviewers can compare your image with existing similar, and so that the closing admins can insert the image into the correct location. You have been reminded about this several times, and you are no longer a newbie. The above is a redlink. So here's my procedural oppose. Please fix this nomination and get it right next time. -- Colin (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- From the newbie perspective: I also find the category format confusing. Why is it not /Animals/Birds#Order:Ciconiiformes_(Storks)/Family:Ciconiidae_(Storks) or .../Ciconiiformes_(Storks)#Family:Ciconiidae_(Storks) or .../Ciconiiformes_(Storks)/Ciconiidae_(Storks) or .../Ciconiiformes/Ciconiidae_(Storks)? The rule seems to be: only get the category page by address and then jump to the family by anchor -- and never forget to replace the spaces. There is nothing in the tutorial to make it easier. It just reads: "Select a category from COM:FP". Not too helpful. --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is poorly designed, but really not difficult to work out. I suggested on the FP talk page that nominations should point to the animal family (not just Animals/Birds in this case) but no one was interested. My opinion is that this change would help voters see any exisitng FPs more easily. Charles (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree it should point to the family (birds, insects, flowers are too big to help) which also helps the closing admin. Start a talk page discussion about instructions for newbies, etc, but Fisher.H isn't a newbie. Axel fixed it for him, which is clearly his intention not to be bothered and expect others to fix it every time. Those who administer our FP pages have enough thankless work to do, and reviewers need all the help they can get to encourage them to compare against the photo's peers. This is the least a nominator can do to help, and just basic courtesy to oblige when repeatedly asked. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- The mistakes I made while creating the FP categories were not intended, but were caused by the confusing category system.--Fischer.H (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, please don't use the phrase "the closing admin". Anyone familiar with the FPC system can and do help out with the closing. Talking about "the closing admin" can give the impression that only admins can close an FPC. --Cart (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination.--Fischer.H (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Eastern great egret (Ardea alba modesta) stretching its neck and preening.jpg, featured, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 01:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family : Ardeidae (Herons)
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Interesting pose, very sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Unusual bird portrait. I'd be even nicer if you could remove that long white thing (a floating trunk maybe?) on the lest side of the bird's head. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per King. --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support More unusual than the majority of bird pictures we see here. Cmao20 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 02:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Dragonfly in flight, in Laos.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2019 at 17:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
- Info created by and uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A second version of this is already a FPC, but they are both so nice that I think both of them should be FPC! --D-Kuru (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I disagree. Charles (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I wonder why. Why shouldn't there be two very good images of the same object? FP isn't VI --D-Kuru (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Great on its own standards, but far too similar to the one Basile nominated. Sure, FP isn't VI, but the composition and background are just so similar to the other one. There's no need to promote two images that are 90% the same. Better to have a lot more variety in what we promote. Cmao20 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by author Thanks a lot, D-Kuru, I'm really honored by the nomination. Your idea is not absurd, the consensus sometimes promote 95% similar pictures in FP like those ones. However, for the diversity, in my opinion we should wait at least next year. This is also better for the votes during the POTY challenge. But I'm sure you'll find good and different works here by others. Enjoy FPC! Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Sacristía Mayor, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 112-114 HDR.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 16:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Spain
- Info Ceiling of the Great Sacristy (a room in which vestments and other furnishings are stored), Cathedral of Seville, Seville, Spain. This cathedral, constructed in the sixteenth century, supplanted the Hagia Sophia to become the largest church in the world. It is still the 3rd-largest church today, and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Please consider that although there is a little noise in the shadows, the resolution of this shot is quite immense (nearly 50 mpx). created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support You are really digging in :) thank you for the nom, Camo20! --Poco2 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- As a history student with particular interest in ecclesiastical history, it is always a pleasure to see interesting church architecture captured in such detail. Of course I have nominated lots of Diliff's photos, but you have plenty of good material too. Cmao20 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Aristeas (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeasǃ--Ermell (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 14:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional support Could you do something about that blue CA near the windows? Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support but per Daniel --Llez (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive image! --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 16:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
- Info The nave of Salisbury Cathedral, Wiltshire, England. One of England's ancient cathedrals, Salisbury Cathedral is noteable for its sixteenth-century spire, the tallest in England (and also the inspiration for William Golding's The Spire). Particularly interesting in this image is how Diliff has managed to include the decorative font, the largest in any English cathedral, and one that made something of an impact in the news when installed. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The reflexion is a nice plus on top Poco2 16:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Aristeas (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very detailed photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 14:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
File:CarduelisChlorisBerry.jpg, delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 20:11:25
- Info In my opinion, the quality of this image is not on par with our standards today. Plus, we have another featured picture of the same species and same sex, which is better IMO. (Original nomination) --Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist -- Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist I agree; this image has compression artefacts as well as a fairly low resolution for 2019 standards, and the bird is only a small part of the photo. I don't think this is one of the best images on Commons, and it has been a long time since it was voted such.--Peulle (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per others. This is a clear case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist Indeed this is definitely not FP, the quality and detail are poor. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist Clearly not an FP anymore. Good find -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist as others. Charles (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist as others. Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist .--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delist per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Cart (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Calaveras Tonalá (2).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 21:14:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Gzzz -- Gzzz zz 21:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Gzzz zz 21:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question What are these plastic bags within the skulls? --Basotxerri (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- They are the protections the skulls are wraped in for transport. --Gzzz zz 09:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Striking. Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2019 at 06:34:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#New_Zealand
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's Angelus Hut in Nelson Lakes National Park, New Zealand, during the sunset. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Special light, nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Basile. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Also per Basile --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Borrowing inspiration from Daniel's reviews: Heaven's on Fire! :-) --Cart (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- @W.carter: For the title alone, I think the Cocteau Twins' "How to Bring a Blush to the Snow" works best. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 14:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Magical atmosphere. I didn't realise at first that I was looking at a frozen lake in the centre. Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Cmao20 Yup, there are actually 2 lakes. A bigger one to drink from (pictured), a smaller one to swim in (not pictured as it's too far right). However, the conditions were not favorable for swimming this time :) --Podzemnik (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The mysterious feeling in this image can be felt by the viewer. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Bandits Roost, 59 and a half Mulberry Street.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 15:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
- Info created by Jacob Riis - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Self explanatory, also quality is exceptional as is. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support and 7. Cmao20 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose good old photo, but no wow.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose lots of damage that can be repaired, see bottom left on corner of structure, and black dots at end of street.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: per BevinKacon. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh light in front, main subjects in the shadow -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Waldemarsviken (62433)p.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 01:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
- Info Waldemarsviken, a harbor in Stockholm between Djurgården and Beckholmen. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites talk | 01:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 01:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I'd move the temperature slider in Lightroom a bit to the left (for my taste, it's a bit too far on the yellowish end), but other than that it's a nice shot: beautiful clouds, good lighting, nice scenery, etc. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 05:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very nice atmosphere. Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support but agree with Frank's remarks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment curious about what others think about the color temperature. FWIW it was not changed in post-processing and doesn't conflict with what I remember the light was like at the time. @Frank Schulenburg: are your photos from Beckholmen (in those quick bursts of sun) cooler in temperature? — Rhododendrites talk | 20:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Seems natural to me. The light greatly resembles some of my photos from Helsinki, like this one. The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. A normal cloudy late summer light to me. Regardless if it is the exact temperature that was at the time, I think it suits the scene. It's a light you often get over the city at any time of the year. --Cart (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 04:41:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
- Info Photographer unknown; restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I would have liked it better if she was looking at the camera, however I am aware that it doesn't have to be like that--Boothsift 05:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Good restoration, but not exceptional: small size, big white margins, the subject is not looking at the camera. If the margins are cropped, it is much below the minimum size. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Centaurea cyanus - Keila.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 12:29:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
- Info created and uploaded by Ivar Leidus - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GeXeS (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors Poco2 14:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 14:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Lovely. Good sharpness against a clear pastel-coloured background. Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Very beautiful. One thing that worries me a bit though, is that there is NR to the right of the flower, but still noise on the left. But that's just a minor issue. --A.Savin 09:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Charles (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 11:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Papilionidae_(Swallowtails)
- Info There are three existing FPs of the underside of this species (and one topside and one mating). I think this FP and this one should both be delisted. This image is FP quality and has the forewing in focus, but is a photo of an elderly butterfly with faded colours and damaged tails. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Please feel free to start delist nominations. As one of the preeminent nature photographers on Commons, I think your opinion counts for something. It remains to be seen if the Community agrees, but that's why we have the voting system.--Peulle (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. See above. Charles (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Too bad it's f/5.6 or the wingtips would have been sharp, too. Still great. --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have FPX'd the other two delists. The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). The D&R of "better photos of the same subject" is a Wikipedia thing, because they generally only have one lead image. Let's not bring that practice here, where images that are fine but considered inferior to a new one are routinely delisted. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have not done an illegal "delist and replace". I have listed two images for delisting as suggested by Peulle. The rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- As noted elsewhere, I incorrectly assumed the two-nominations applied to both kind rather than independently. The other two remain FPX'd because they are an illegal "delist and replace" albeit spread over three nominations. The rules for delist state "it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". This should be quite clear. We have countless nominations where photographers indicate existing FPs of their subject/topic, claim theirs is better or different and worthy of a gold star, and do not go about eliminating all the others. It just isn't done and would require consensus for a rule change to permit it. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support It's a good addition to the other FPs of this butterfly. --Cart (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cart. "It's a good addition to the other FPs of this butterfly." -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry to oppose, but half the wing is out of focus. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the forewing. Charles (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Cart and Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and composition. In focus where it needs to be. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Nice compo but short DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Angels Landing and the Great White Throne.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 20:47:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Utah
- Info: all by me; second nomination (First nom) - relit, denoised, improved colour. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. Very lovely colors and composition, but unsharp at pixel level. It appears that it has insufficient detail and was oversharpened at too high of a radius to compensate. But I think a m4/3 camera should be capable of more than that. Which lens did you use, and which aperture? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- It was a stock 14-42 mm f/3.5-5.6 lens at f/8, which hasn't performed a whole lot better than this for me. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, kit lenses are never going to give the best sharpness, and there's a lot of sample variation so you might have an inferior copy. I used to shoot with a Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DX, and as you can see in File:Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 panorama 2.jpg while center sharpness is just fine, the edges are weak even at f/8 (or f/11 full-frame equivalent). A lens that peaks at f/8 is especially bad on m4/3 because you're using the equivalent of f/16 full-frame, where diffraction is certainly visible (even if it isn't a deal-breaker as it might be at f/22 or smaller). But for some reason your lens seems to lack punch even in the center. Something like the 12-35mm f/2.8 would work wonders and allow you to shoot at a larger aperture such as f/5.6 when you don't need the DOF. Regardless, in the present case I wouldn't use such a large radius for sharpening because it just creates haloes everywhere and doesn't actually improve sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I actually upgraded to a D3300 a few years ago and I'm very happy with the kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II). At 55 mm, it's quite sharp, allowing to produce fairly respectable flower close-ups. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, kit lenses are never going to give the best sharpness, and there's a lot of sample variation so you might have an inferior copy. I used to shoot with a Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DX, and as you can see in File:Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 panorama 2.jpg while center sharpness is just fine, the edges are weak even at f/8 (or f/11 full-frame equivalent). A lens that peaks at f/8 is especially bad on m4/3 because you're using the equivalent of f/16 full-frame, where diffraction is certainly visible (even if it isn't a deal-breaker as it might be at f/22 or smaller). But for some reason your lens seems to lack punch even in the center. Something like the 12-35mm f/2.8 would work wonders and allow you to shoot at a larger aperture such as f/5.6 when you don't need the DOF. Regardless, in the present case I wouldn't use such a large radius for sharpening because it just creates haloes everywhere and doesn't actually improve sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- It was a stock 14-42 mm f/3.5-5.6 lens at f/8, which hasn't performed a whole lot better than this for me. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. It's a shame though, because you have a really decent composition there. But it does look insufficiently detailed and oversharpened to compensate. I don't suppose you have the RAW files so we can see if it could be processed any better? Cmao20 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Alas, no, I don't even have the original jpegs prior to stitching. Served me a good lesson for having backups though. The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Good composition, but significant detail loss.--Peulle (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above --Boothsift 05:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Even if it were sharp, I would still find that shadow at lower left too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Central hidroeléctrica de Walchensee, Kochel, Baviera, Alemania, 2014-03-22, DD 04.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 14:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Germany
- Info Turbines room of the Walchensee Hydroelectric Power Station, Kochel, Bavaria, Germany. The storage power station is fed water from the Walchensee which is then released into the Kochelsee. The installed capacity is 124 MW with an annual production of 300 GWh, one of the largest of its kind in Germany. c/u/n by me, Poco2 14:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 14:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
OpposeIMO in an image where lines and a vanishing point are the key, symmetry is very important. However the angle between right and left screw it. Maybe a horizontal correction could fix it? --Basotxerri (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)- Basotxerri: Tricky, the subject itself is not symmetric. I applied though a slight horizontal perspective correction, what do you think? Poco2 19:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral OK, better now. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting motif, and different from most of what we see at FPC. Gives a good sense of the power and steampunk-esque grandeur of the machinery. Somehow the asymmetry doesn't bother me here, it adds a bit of dynamism. Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great subject. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Horizontals need to be corrected, visible at the windows in the background. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Better now there at the back, Uoaei1? --Poco2 17:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A different way to see Kraftwerk live . Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Groan!!! --Cart (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:10:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Austria
- Info created by and uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 18:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 18:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice photo but no wow, sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done @Basile Morin: @Michielverbeek: @Daniel Case: @Fischer.H: @Basotxerri: Hopefully there is an improvement after the suggested crop. —- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Michiel. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Well done and “wows” ;–) me. --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I think this is pretty good. Per Aristeas, the building itself has wow, and the composition and image quality seem fine. Maybe not the best light, but still OK for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not an excellent picture for me. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Nice but the crop could be improved in my opinion (see note) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wow for me! --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Michiel. Disturbing shadows, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Dirtsc (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 20:23:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passeridae_(Sparrows)
- Info All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Don't you just want to tickle that belly? ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 01:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Adorable. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Poco2 11:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice bokeh -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Boothsift 05:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Fabulous quality, especially considering the shot was taken in the wild, and a pleasing crop that provides just enough space for the branching twig. The Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM is a great lens even at the far end of the tele scale, at which older lenses often tend to visible softness. And, of course, the 400 mm tele setting provides that wonderfully enhanced blur that affects features even in the near background, thus creating such a harmonious backdrop. --Franz van Duns (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice balancing on the diagonal branch. Too bad the beak is right in front of it. Still: great photo. --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 08:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
File:20190817 Widok na Most Karola i Zamek na Hradczanach z Wieży Staromiejskiej Mostu Karola 2038 5630 DxO.jpg
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2019 at 05:42:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Czech_Republic
- Info created by and uploaded by Jakubhal - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 05:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Boothsift 05:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, I like the composition, but the sheer number of ghosts on the bridge in the foreground just look too weird for me. There are quite a lot of artefacts round some of the bright lights too. Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Boothsift 01:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2019 at 07:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Strigidae_(True_Owls)
- Info created & uploaded by Apu Jaman - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor technical quality. Little definition. Has it also been downsized? Charles (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Very nice photo, but ISO 2000 blurs the details --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles. A clear case.--Peulle (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No adequate image resolution,sorry.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Quite adorable, but too noisy for me, certainly when compared to our best bird photos. Cmao20 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the quality here...--Boothsift 05:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Because of Quality sorry ..--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 08:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Loxodonta africana - Etosha 2013.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2019 at 06:37:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Elephantidae (Elephants)
- Info created & uploaded by Yathin sk - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Wow, but not sharp enough. IMO more contrast would have been a serious improvement --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose We have dozens of better elephant photos. Would have probably failed at QI. Charles (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The vignetting caused by the lens should be corrected. --Cart (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment and FP category should be Mammals#Order : Proboscidea_(Elephants) 12:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well Mammals#Family : Elephantidae (Elephants) to be precise. Now fixed. --Cart (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose A good shot overall, but we have a number of better elephant photos on Commons, many of which are FP. This one has a few quality issues, and isn't overall on the same level for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose noisy and unsharp Seven Pandas (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)