Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2019

File:Dead tree in Black Range, New Zealand.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2019 at 09:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
Info all by me. It's a dead tree in Black Range, New Zealand. Winter is over but summer is not here yet. I like the gloomy light, I think it goes well with the dead tree on the photo. -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture, not so great editing. Too much clarity (or was it shadow recovery), there is highlight recovery but not enough, overall too light, etc. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp focus to beautiful dead tree --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what's the big stain in the center of the picture? - Benh (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose this version per Kenny/Benh. Seems like the issues may be fixable. The spot in the center looks like an accidental click of a dodge brush? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination @Benh, KennyOMG, and Rhododendrites: Hmmm sorry guys I haven"t noticed the stain. I'm not sure what it is, it's in a RAW file too. I tried to work with it but I'm not happy with the result so I'll drop down this one. All good, I have a similar image that I'll nominate later. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bengal monitor at Anawilundawa Bird Sanctuary - (A Mischievous Grin).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 17:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Varanidae (Monitor Lizards)
Info created & uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy, but lots of impressive close-up detail to make up for it. Cmao20 (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: noisy, dark and too tightly cropped on the bottom ,nearly cutting the tongue, but its grin provides just enough of a wow factor to compensate. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Noisy and tight at the bottom. But high resolution and interesting action. I like the way this tongue can be taken for a fish -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Basile and Cosmo. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've had a look a few times as it's a good shot, but is really too noisy. Charles (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Varanidae (Monitor Lizards)

File:Galápagos Islands (Ecuador).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 07:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info created by UNESCO - uploaded by Tæ - nominated by Tæ -- √Tæ√ 07:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- √Tæ√ 07:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, this spot is known as "León Dormido", see the corresponding category Poc o² 07:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: Thanks for correction but it is a part of Galapagos Island.--√Tæ√ 08:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't contradict that Poc o² 09:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor choice of file name Charles (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer no boat and a level horizon. Charles (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't edit the image to remove a particular thing (boat in this case).--√Tæ√ 11:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No, you can't. I implied that's what would be needed for FP. Better view points for this place in the category. Charles (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: What do you mean?--√Tæ√ 14:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

like this view point. Charles (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tilted ccw, see the horizon --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Undoubtedly beautiful but Uoaei1 is right about the horizon. Also not very high-resolution for this kind of shot, and not especially well named per Poco (although that's not a reason for oppose) - 'Galapagos Islands' is a very general title. Specificity of location is best. Cmao20 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, now what I have to do?--√Tæ√ 07:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Become a regular visitor here studying how others nominate and vote. Also, look at the FP galleries. Charles (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm not loving the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--√Tæ√ 12:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kerawang Gayo.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 09:29:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other
Info created by Gunarta - uploaded by Gunarta - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sadly, per the FPX. But it really is a lovely pattern. It'd be nice if we had it in SVG. Cmao20 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Lovely pattern, but at only 1 megapixel it doesn't meet size standards

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016-01-10 Mycena leaiana var. australis Dennis 598258.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 21:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created by Steve Axford (steveaxford) - uploaded by Josef Papi - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: rather prominent blurry area; see note. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support True, but most of it is very sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please don’t take me wrong. Very great idea and work, well worth a full support. It’s just the prominent blurry area pointed out by The Cosmonaut. Makes it virtually impossible to use this photo e.g. for a book cover. Too bad. As soon as this is fixed, I will be more than ready to switch to support (notification would be great so I don’t forget re-checking). --Kreuz schnabel 23:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing blur, per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regrets per above --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's really a shame about that blurred area, but it's so beautifully composed and lit... - Benh (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artistically speaking: Great subject, composition, colors, lighting, mood – love it! But unfortunately, technically speaking as a focus stack it's a fail. There's some more blurriness in the foreground at the bottom right that would be easy to forgive. But FPC is for the best of the best and that one patch of blur is right on the main subject. It really is a shame though :-/ --El Grafo (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the blurry area. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With regrets per Kreuzschnabel. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teenage Mahout.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 03:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created, uploaded and nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, dramatic photo but I'm not sure the quality is there at full size, there's a lot of 'blockiness' and lack of detail in some places. I think (I may be wrong) this is a smartphone shot, and such images unfortunately rarely make it at FP as the lenses simply arent' capable of capturing the shot at sufficient quality. Cmao20 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 – you did your best, but technically, it looks oversharpened, oversaturated and over-contrasty. As for the shot itself, I don’t see much outstanding here. It’s a nice moment captured but nothing really special IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 23:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but the light is far from optimal -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20.--Peulle (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao and lack of wow. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't seem to find the wow--Booth sift 03:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bay 2 mall parking, on a Sunday morning, Collégien, France - July 2019.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 03:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#France
Info created by Benh - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed FP category. Please remember that 'Places' is a main category now and select one of the other (old and new) galleries. Putting the reminder here since it will probably take some time for all users to get the info. --Cart (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, thanks for the many late noms Paris_16. - Benh (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating image, did you capture it from a nearby tall building? Cmao20 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cmao20, it's taken with a drone. The EXIF gives the model of the camera attached to it (I used a Mavic 2 pro if you are curious). - Benh (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks like a board game somehow... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thinking more along the lines of a circuit board. Guess it works like a Rorschach test. :-) --Cart (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is just great. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overwowed. --Kreuz schnabel 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but nothing special to me. Drone photos with the camera inclined 90° downwards are not rare. To make me say wow, it has to be a nice and/or interesting motif, what a usual parking lot is not. However the quality, considering the possibilities of this camera, is quite good. --A.Savin 06:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like something you'd see in a video game ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the first time I said "wow" at a parking lot, well done--Booth sift 04:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017O6032 - Кременець.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 18:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Myroslav Vydrak - uploaded by Myroslav Vydrak - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish it were landscape to trade some of the sky for some space on the left, but it's a pleasing image with nice colors. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has way too much 'Clarity' for my taste, especially in the sky. Do you think you could dial it down a bit? --Cart (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This photo was taken 2 years ago. Then I wanted to achieve maximum sharpness in everything. Today I wouldn't do so, but have decided to leave everything on this photo as it was at the beginning. --Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your choice, but then per my comment above I'll Oppose this then. --Cart (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is the colour of the sky due to a polarizing filter? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No --Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Midday light is quite boring here -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the landscape, but it seems a little overprocessed to me, what with that extremely blue, dramatic sky (I can see why The Cosmonaut thought it was done with a polarising filter) contrasting against the saturated green grass. I think Cart is right that there is too much 'clarity' here, it doesn't look quite natural. Cmao20 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky and earth are fighting with each other too much for this picture to deliver a unitary subject. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arc de Triomphe, Paris 5 February 2019.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2019 at 16:08:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created by Alexandre Prevot (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Perspective?~~ Charles (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's sharp, it's perspective corrected. But I wouldn't feature it. It's not a very challenging or difficult shot in itself (tourists probably shoot thousands of these arc de triomphe photos in similar quality, with same amount of cars, every day). I also wonder why it's more on the right side of the frame. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Benh on this. It takes a bit more to take a wow-y or artistic photo of this place. One wild idea that immediately came to mind was something like taking an ND filter and make a swirl of the cars around it during daytime. (I'm sure there are plenty of car trail photos at night from this place.) --Cart (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsized Charles (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too static, like a very good tourist shot, per Cart and Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Juive Act 1 set 1835 - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2019 at 17:17:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera
Info Lithograph by Eugène Cicéri (1813-1890) and Philippe Benoist (1813-1905), after a set design by Charles Séchan, Léon Feuchère, Jules Dieterle, and/or Édouard Desplechin. Restored by Adam Cuerden, also uploaded and nominated. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and really interesting to view in full. Cmao20 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 22:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 09:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera

File:Mannesmann-Hochhaus Düsseldorf illuminated 2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 18:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by Till.niermann - uploaded by Till.niermann - nominated by Till.niermann -- Till (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this. It sort of makes me think of those video games where you see a map and one building turns into a giant beacon of light to say "this is where you must go." Clearly, this place is where one must go. :) It could use a perspective correction. Possible to correct without losing too much of the light? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where the perspective needs to be corrected. The verticals are exactly vertical, however the picture was taken standing on a bridge, therefore not perpendicularly in front of the building. So the river "retreats" to the left. --Till (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The verticals are vertical indeed -- I should've looked closer before commenting. Maybe just the perspective/comp is just not working for me. Not enough to oppose, though. Thanks for the response. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wish it had more megapixels but it's an interesting subject with a descent wow factor for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: given that the photo is 12 years old, smaller size can be overlooked. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp at pixel level, even with just 6.8 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness as per KoH, plus I don’t understand why the main motiv should be put so far out of center (more than 2:1, nearly 3:1). A symmetric motif like this asks for a centered composition IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 05:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Taken in 2007 and it might have been an FP then, but twelve years later it's not.--Peulle (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice but the quality just isn't there. Also a lot of green/purple chromatic aberration. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, seems sharp enough to me and definitely has wow. Resolution is a little low but that's forgiveable. Cmao20 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moderate wow and weak quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't look at it in full-res because compositionally it just takes in too much. A tighter closeup on the building would, I agree, sacrifice the beams going up into the sky but it would look a lot cooler. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and similar remarks from others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monument Monseigneur-De Laval détail 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 13:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Reliefs
Info all by -- Cephas (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is pretty cool. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not extraordinary for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoei1--Ermell (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficiently interesting for FP for me, but then again I'm interested in this kind of thing. Cmao20 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: can a more relaxed crop be produced? Currently, the sides are too tightly cropped, especially on the right. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much the size of the original picture (considering it needed an tilt correction). --Cephas (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weißstorch IMG 14856.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2019 at 16:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds # Ciconiiformes (Storks)
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp and the nest (on a man-made pole) is barely started. Charles (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks overprocessed to me.--Peulle (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. There’s a dark seam around the bird looking like overdone tone-mapping, and it’s not really sharp. --Kreuz schnabel 19:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, per above; I also don't see what the image gains from offseting the subject to the left except perhaps sufficient pixillage to nominate. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Not the easiest capture, and useful for articles, but Charles and others have produced sharper work in this genre. Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desna river Vinn meadow 2019 G01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 22:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
Info Mist (visible atmospheric water) shortly before sunrise. Desena river, Ukraine
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ It might have been a wonderful place and probably an exquisite moment, but like this one for me this picture is too dark, or contains too many obscur areas -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral with the shadows enhanced. But the picture is still not amazing me -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one much more (mist and more visible content)-- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quite all right but missing something.--Peulle (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great atmosphere. Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I didn't expect to go for this at first, but the composition has grown on me. It's better than your last foggy shot. Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, it needs some more dehaze-saturation, because it looks quite flat. --C messier (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any object in a fog loses its shadow and looks flat. It looks natural IMO -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you go out to shoot fog, why on earth would you then use dehaze on it. It's kind of against what you are trying to capture. But bringing up the shadows quite a lot on this would work miracles. I tested to push the shadows in 'shadow/highlight' to about 20-25 and the image popped out. :) Same trick I used on this and this. --Cart (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cart very much for your advice. I tried (just as a test), and it really improved the perception. I will recreate the image from the original shot afer a few hours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. New version uploaded with lightening shadow areas a bit -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The brightening gave it depth. --Cart (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captures the fragility of early morning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:201 Dome Mosque 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2019 at 18:32:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Bangladesh
Info created by Azim Khan Ronnie - uploaded by Azim Khan Ronnie - nominated by Till.niermann -- Till (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shame about the cut-off people round the edge. 20:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, people are there, same as rubbish, but they're not distracting me from enjoying a wow effect. Also, good quality and light for this kind of a shot. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. --A.Savin 13:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Impressive and wow-y, but the lines are not quite straight, and a couple of the mini-domes are cut off at the edges. 14:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Cmao20 (talk)
Support gorgeous composition and topic. Although I do agree with Cmao - Benh (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice enough for a support. Ahmad^talk 12:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others for a very pleasant composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roof of the qom grand bazaar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2019 at 16:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Poco a poco 16:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Domes of the Grand Timcheh, Qom, Iran.
Support -- Poc o² 16:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 20:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: wow! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent work. --Gnosis (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find. Cmao20 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well executed --Wilfredor (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a widescreen desktop. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support a strong one. Ahmad^talk 19:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2019 - Wiener Karlskirche mit Teich und "Hill Arches" Skulptur am Abend.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2019 at 21:56:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Austria
Info created by and uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 21:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 21:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. Good quality too. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mirror effect, special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral sorry but while this is a great photo, it's processed with Adobe, and they just haven't figured out how to do demosaicing on Fuji data. They are notorious for their water color effects. Here, it shows quite well on the columns where the details are lost (and it would probably be more obvious had it been left full 26mpix size and not 15mpix). - Benh (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and light. I agree it is not fully sharp at 100% but possibly due to long exposure (4s) rather than camera? A little sharpening, combined with a sharpening mask to avoid noise in the sky, might help. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capture was done right. It's the demosaicing which is wrong here. If user has the raw, he can reprocess (with everything but adobe products). - Benh (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support been there, tried that, failed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely reflections; not quite sharp, but the text is clearly visible above the entrance of the building. Shame about the graffiti on the right-hand side though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If it could be improved, great, but it's already an FP to me per others, mainly because of the light and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Watson River Upper Canyon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 22:45:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
Info created and uploaded by User:JakubFrys, nominated by me. I like the light. There is quite a lot of shadow but it evokes in me coldness and huge mountains that are both there, you just can't see them -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle/point of view/perspective/crop doesn't really work for me, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 17:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose per Martin. Feels like it's taken from there because there was no other choice. But it looks like a lovely sight - Benh (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for me, I like the light. The composition is unusual, with the lack of any sky on the right-hand side, but it works pretty well. Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. Beautiful scenery, but the composition doesn't work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The upper-left third is nice, but the rest isn't working for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition with this dark corner -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alright, thanks for the input! --Podzemnik (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahaetulla prasina, oriental whipsnake - Kaeng Krachan National Park (15895767306).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2019 at 15:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Rushen - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks Christ for this nomination --Wilfredor (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 19:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good 'pose'. Charles (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Christian Ferrer for all your nominations, you're really expanding our FP collection of animals. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one. Cmao20 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice curves -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see, this snake truely has an aerodynamic head! Great shot. Ahmad^talk 12:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Dinkum (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great picture from Rushen. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:E-burg asv2019-05 img49 Opera and Ballet House.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2019 at 13:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info Opera and Ballet House of Yekaterinburg at Blue hour ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting building, quality image. Cmao20 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wide-angle perspective is pushing the edge of acceptable -- would have been better to be further back and higher up if possible. The light is very nice. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice building, good light, good sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I'm not sure why it was taken with this wide an angle. Stepping back would have shown more of the other façades. But it's really nice otherwise. - Benh (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the skyscraper would ruin the view. --A.Savin 15:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Nice but the top part is too deformed, I'd applied an aspect ratio to that area to compensate the vertical perspective correction. Poc o² 13:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leg Rowing Fisherman Inle Lake Myanmar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2019 at 19:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info all by me -- Benh (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support About the quality, my camera was mistakenly set to shoot jpeg then... so I submit this candidate with the hope the composition will make up for that. -- Benh (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A unique shot - there's nothing at all like this on Commons. That makes up for the so-so quality. Cmao20 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is this other FP of these fishermen. --Cart (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Striking composition, special in its kind -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing composition and posible image of year. --Wilfredor (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition. Charles (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm having second thoughts about the identifiable person... any opinion? I remember why I uploaded to Flickr and not here. I may request deletion of the picture. - Benh (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it. With the {{personality rights}} tag (now in place), it's fine. --Cart (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Creative composition and maybe among "the best of Flickr", but otherwise I don't see a reason why it should belong to "the best of Commons". (Btw: poor categorization, meanwhile fixed it for you) --A.Savin 13:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it's "creative" and there's less such pictures than buildings? - Benh (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advantage, but not enough. Commons isn't "yet another photo stock" and has pretty other scope than Flickr. --A.Savin 14:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that picture doesn't fit in the scope. But what can I do, if you think a picture of a centered building at dusk is more special and shall belong to the best of Commons contrary to this. - Benh (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, please avoid responding to criticism by in turn being critical of the reviewer's own work/nominations. And anyway, the merits/qualities of the two images are quite different and not directly comparable. -- Colin (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: you are totally right. I just wanted to point out, probably not in the most elegant way, that the review is a bit unfair, and that Alexander's review could totally be transposed to his nom. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it appears unfair. --A.Savin 02:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to A.Savin and Cart for the different fixes. - Benh (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Commons is more than just a repository of identity-photos of buildings and people for Wikipedia. The leg rowing on Inle Lake appears to be an "iconic" thing, so lets have a photographic/artistic excellent picture of it. I could very much see this on the cover of a tour/guide-book for the region, which certainly fits within Commons scope. -- Colin (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I second that. Very much! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support +1. People here (myself not excluded) sometimes seem to forget that there are projects other than Wikipedia, and that these projects may have different needs regarding media files. This one's perfect for Wikivoyage, for example: Inle lake. --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a compelling image. Support per others and El Grafo, thanks for mentioning Wikivoyage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sort of picture that justifies paying for a National Geographic subscription. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful framing. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reading about this on Wikivoyage "A boat trip on the lake is a must do. Unfortunately, it is also one of the biggest tourist traps in Myanmar...", I think a "trapped" tourist looking at the fisherman from within a fish trap is quite appropriate. :) --Cart (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's even worst than what you might think. There are heaps of these fishermen awaiting to pose for tourists (and expecting tips in return, obviously). That pose, we got after a tip. Everything was staged (in case that wasn't obvious) and even the direction of the boat, the timing... have a walk on the lake shore, you should very quicky get dozens of propositions for a "sunset boat trip" :) I wonder if these fishermen still do some actual fishing for a living. - Benh (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wonderful. --Schnobby (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pavillon Alexandre-Vachon 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2019 at 18:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info all by -- Cephas (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing particularly special, tight composition --Wilfredor (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Impressing level of detail and surely QI but nothing really special --Kreuz schnabel 19:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Definitely QI, but I don't find the building very interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and are you sure it might not be a little too greenish? The color of the sky (though still blue) seems off, at least on this monitor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Under the right circumstances, this might make it, but these aren't the right circumstances. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waihi Beach Reserve 31.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2019 at 14:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand#Taranaki
Info created by Krzysztof Golik - uploaded by Krzysztof Golik - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In addition to the great composition and the natural colours, I am thrilled by the increasingly dwindling contrast to the background, because it brings the picture to life and you can almost feel the salty taste on your tongue. -- Smial (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with the nominator, this is lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Masum Reza^📞 15:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was curious about the apparently overhanging cliff on the left, and then noticed the leaning distant chimneys were leaning. I see from the EXIF that a -23 vertical perspective correction was applied, which would make the edges lean outwards. Please can you reduce this. (At a pixel-peeping level, there's lots of chroma noise which looks like you've lifted the shadows a bit much.) -- Colin (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I think the "leaning distant chimneys [that] were leaning" should be addressed somehow. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Weintraube P1260279.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2019 at 16:36:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Vitales(Fruits)
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Relatively small and rather noisy. Sorry, I can’t see anything special in this shot. --Kreuz schnabel 17:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice detail, if a bit noisy, but there's a lot of distracting objects in the background such as the wire and the metal pole. Cmao20 (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ugly background and too ordinary. This one was better -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dean Emma M. Gillette 274015v.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2019 at 23:40:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Edmonston, Washington, D.C - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Owl moth (Automeris belti belti).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2019 at 10:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Saturniidae_(Saturniids)
Info A hard core moth. A large moth of 100mm wingspan. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great as ever. I have taken the liberty of adding the figure about the wingspan to the image description. Cmao20 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's very good quality and specimen (at least do I guess) but the light seems a bit harsh and there's that big shadow, giving a big contrast. Wonder if it couldn't be lifted a bit? - Benh (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a new version for you Benh. Charles (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the dark area is too color blotched now (too strong NR?)... I'd prefer the first version if you ask me. - Benh (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, I'd prefer a version with both lifted shadows, and light NR ;) - Benh (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the original version... Charles (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and the background is fine with me, producing a satisfying composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Saturniidae_(Saturniids)

File:Symphyotrichum novae-angliae1.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2019 at 02:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info: blooming New England aster (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae); all by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, imo. --Peulle (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but, as with your last flower shot, I do feel that it needs a bit more sharpening. Pretty and good quality though. Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done: improved sharpness Peulle --The Cosmonaut (talk)
Oppose Most of the object is unsharp due to shallow DoF, and less than 9 megapixels is not overwhelming for a still subject. I really can’t see anything outstanding on this image. --Kreuz schnabel 17:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unsharp still. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Cmao--Booth sift 00:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort Point, September 2019-8795.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 02:55:16 (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) 02:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition feels right. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. The composition is really good here. A perfect example of how to use light and shadows to produce a great photo. Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info On YouTube, you can get a glimpse of how I took this picture… (in German) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will we WLM-USA jurors see this among the submissions? Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took this image as part of Wiki Loves Monuments. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

La Grande Roue de Montréal, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 02:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

La Grande Roue de Montréal
La Grande Roue de Montréal at Night

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are they not taken from the same place? Charles (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles When I arrived, there was a mobile popcorn shop that I didn't expect to be there --Wilfredor (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral they look taken from (edit: not quite) the same spot to me. But the night one is a bit blurry overall. - Benh (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, this is a long exposure, hopefully, that moving parts look blurry. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose for the daytime shot, support for the nighttime shot, if such a thing is possible. Both are good quality, and although not quite from the same place, it's near enough so that it's broadly OK for me. However, they both seem slightly lacking in sharpness at full size, although when downsized to 3000px across they're OK; if anything, I disagree a bit with Benh, as the night-time one actually looks sharper than the day-time one when downsized. Coupled with the slightly grey-ish and flat light on the day-time shot, I don't think there's enough to feature that one for me, although it's definitely QI. But the wow of the light and the reflections in the night shot means that one works better for FP IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cmao on the daytime shot, and for the weird posterization/visible brushstrokes on the sky in the nighttime shot. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Criccieth Castle at Sunset, Caernarfonshire, Wales - 18-07-2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2019 at 15:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#United Kingdom
Info I'm not going to pretend this shot is perfect technically, but still, I'm happy with it. I like the warm, soft sunset lighting, and I think the extra interest to the composition is provided by the couple looking on towards the castle in the foreground. I have no idea who they are, but I think they add immensely to the composition, making this an image that could work as a postcard. All my work, Cmao20 (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of good elements in this image but IMO not enough Wow factor for FP. Would support for QI. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least the people in the background spoil it. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely nice but lacks whow. I can’t really see what this picture is trying to tell me. Foreground too dominant if the castle is the main subject. --Kreuz schnabel 18:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination OK, fair enough. The castle was not intended to be the only subject, instead I intended to capture the image so that the couple in the foreground would add visual interest rather than it just being a boring picture of a castle. It looks like people are not as impressed as I had hoped. Thanks for all reviews. Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château d'Yvoire vu du lac Léman.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2019 at 00:06:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info created by Fawaz.tairou - uploaded by Fawaz.tairou - nominated by Fawaz.tairou -- Fawaz.tairou (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fawaz.tairou (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have an iPhone 6S. I never expect to take an FP with that phone, and you shouldn't expect to take one with yours, either. I think my Moto G5 Android phone took better pictures than this iPhone, but it didn't produce anything of anywhere near FP quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Ikan - I happen to have a Huawei P20 as smartphone device and for point and shoot-photography. In my opinion it does a way better job in keeping the details as the iPhone 6S in the above shot and works astonishingly great in darkness, but it's still away from the technical possibilities a bigger sensor of at least the size of APS-C can give you. --Granada (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No good composition, no good lighting, for me no FP -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the IQ issues per Spurzem. The image is tilted, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My first nomination here was a picture that I shot with an iPhone 4S… and it failed pretty much for the same reasons. Don't give up – keep trying! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC) P.S. I like the composition, especially the empty space you included to highlight the surroundings of the main subject[reply]
Oppose per above. Sadly it's really not easy to get FP quality from a smartphone. Cmao20 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: general image quality / lack of detail --Kreuz schnabel 18:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jupiter, perijove 22 Io shadow composite.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 20:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy#Planets_(including_dwarf_planets)
Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Kevin M. Gill © CC BY, uploaded and nominated by me. It's a shadow of Io, one of the Jupiter's moons, on Jupiter. The image was taken a few weeks ago. It recently appeared in media like DailyMail etc. I think the photo is quite unique, it's got wow and good resolution considering what it is and where it is. I think it deserves to be featured. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ sorry, but even after reading the caption and the linked source description page, I still can't get a real clue at how this was made. I don't think this is the Jupiter people expect and it is even likely to be misleading. It looks more like one of those tiny planet panoramas so my bet is that this is a "close up". I really don't want to have to dig up the internet to understand it. - Benh (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I took the time to read. It's a composite of several fisheye views, which explains the weird patterns. And the big relative size of the shadow. I think this should be clearly captioned. - Benh (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alright I did even more digging and there are some doubts if it's not too distorted. As I can't judged it myself, I'll rather withdraw. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christian wedding in Russia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2019 at 17:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
Info created by Виктория Злых - uploaded by Виктория Злых - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quality not good enough. --Gnosis (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The technical quality is not good enough, also the preast's arm obscures his face.--Peulle (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this picture is the worldwide winner of Wiki Loves Love 2019! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1812:1432:8600:4966:eea4:e48d:6939 (talk • contribs)
Oppose Agree with others. There is noise, and strong chromatic aberrations. The very bright highlights on the window and floor are unpleasant. But a nice idea for an FP. And no, having won a "Wiki Loves..." contest is by no means sufficient for a picture to become an FP. --A.Savin 12:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't know 'Wiki Loves Love' was a thing, but I'm glad this picture did well in it, as it's a beautiful photo with all the artwork and the rays of sunlight. But I agree with A. Savin; doing well in a 'Wiki Loves' contest is not a good predictor of what images will do well at FPC, and vice versa. Wiki Loves contests often seem to prioritise 'wow factor' over technical excellence, whereas FPC tends to be more exacting about image quality. Take the example of this, a dramatic photo that deservedly won 9th place in WLM 2018, but was (rightly) rejected at FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The spectacle outweighs the quality issues. Per the guidelines, "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject". Striking and well composed, with the divine light coming through the window -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see an issue here. To me I get somewhat of a sense of divinity in the picture. --Booth sift 03:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene and the compo is really good, I even like that the priest's face is partially hidden so he doesn't photo bomb the couple. But the technical quality is lower than it should/could be. For an FP you'd expect some basic post-processing and while the light through the window is great, it's unnecessary strong/harsh. I don't see this as falling under the "very difficult subject" category since weddings are probably held regularly in that church with the participants standing in exactly the same places looking lovely. --Cart (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Wilfredor (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Morin. Bathed in divine light, the narrative shown in this Russian Orthodox marriage ceremony is very compelling and draws the viewer into the story that the walls suggest is part of centuries of culture. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very regretful oppose/Очень опечаленный против A potentially beautiful image done in by the noise and other technical shortcomings. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, particularly Cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others: quality and technical problems. -- Pofka (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis ispida) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 21:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)
Info There aren't many fish available on the Great Hungarian Plain so she is fishing for dragonfly larvae. This photo was taken two minutes later. Job done. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a sucker for a nice kingfisher. I will say, however, that I prefer the original version with more space. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 17:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the other photo is also nice and I would have also supported a set nomination of both images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not particularly jaw-dropping, but still a beautiful shot. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)

File:Magen David Synagogue Interiors after restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2019 at 01:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings #India
Info created by and uploaded by DeepanjanGhosh - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 01:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 01:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wire at the right is annoying, but probably unavoidable. Otherwise very good --A.Savin 12:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find Boothsift, this is another strong photo of a non-Christian religious building, which (as discussed at FPC talk) is something we are lacking in. Cmao20 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: I was getting tired of church interiors so I wanted to change things up. Thanks for the review--Booth sift 01:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love architectural photos, and I think this one is nicely taken. High vantage point, interesting architecture. Can't go wrong with this. - Benh (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual point of view. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh --DXR (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI definitely, but compositionally no wow for me (that light pole near the right is distracting). Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monarch butterfly in BBG (84685).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 23:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info monarch butterfly on woolly ironweed in Brooklyn, New York. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gracious, that's sharp. You can see all the fine texture on the wings. Cmao20 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. I'm amazed you got such a sharp picture of a butterfly at 1/400 of a second, rather than 1/4000. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It would have been stationary. You can see its proboscis in the flower. Charles (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't had such luck. I often have to use 1/4000 second to get clear pictures of butterflies, because they don't stay long enough on any one flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True for swallowtails and whites. And get yourself up earlier in the morning Ikan Kekek when they're sleepy!! Charles (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I'm also sleepy then. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have a few FP of this species already but this one stand out for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Estonian Museum of Natural History - Coccosteus cuspidatus.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 10:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Biology
Info created by Vladislav Egorov (3D model) & Jaagup Metsalu (render) - uploaded by Estonian Museum of Natural History - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info It was created for the exhibition "The Secrets of Ancient Seas" and brought to wiki as a part of bigger GLAM cooperation.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would struggle at QI. Unsharp. Tilted. Charles (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sharpness is fixed at the creatures eye. Where specifically is the problem? Kruusamägi (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

80% of the creature is out of focus. Charles (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charlesjsharp.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about FoP of Museum models? --Llez (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, this is not a photo of a physical model, so I don't think FoP would apply. The question to me seems like whether or not the uploader is the copyright owner and/or where specifically the license is documented, as there is no direct link provided on the file page. We have a category of similar images which likewise should probably have better documentation. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This a computer-generated reconstruction of a fish that lived ca 400 million years ago. So there is no way FoP could apply.

Only that museum has those files and they were made for an exhibition (that looked like this) and we are now trying to also set that up also to wikisource. After the last files have been uploaded we'll also deal with OTRS (but it should still be obvious, that those files are from the museum collection and the only reason they are now in Commons is that the museum has allowed them to get here).

Considering that we virtually have nothing similar to that in Commons and that this is pretty high-quality stuff, it would also make sense to get something featured from that selection to encourage the museum to upload similar stuff in the future. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't feature photos as an inducement, only because they merit featuring. Anything else has at least a vague whiff of corruption to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly a valuable illustration, but I don't think it's amongst the best on Commons. Considering it is computer-animated, surely the animators could have produced an image that had the whole creature sharp, rather than simulating a shallow DoF focussing on its eye. I appreciate this is all we have and we don't have access to the museum's files, but this nonetheless precludes it from FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao and all the other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. -- Pofka (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sharpness is far from FP standards. A computer generated reconstruction does not bypass minimum standards. --Booth sift 05:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harpago arthriticus 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 06:02:56 (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) 06:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama 360 of Basilique Saint-Patrick, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 02:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Canada
360° viewer
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superbly done 360x180° panorama. a few small stitching error, but not easy to notice in my opinion and don't ruin the experience. - Benh (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't spot any stitching errors. Well done for keeping it clean of tourists. Plenty resolution to see details in the wood and I like this interactive way of exploring an interior. I do wonder if it is a bit bright overall. I see DXR's photo is quite bright too. What is your recollection of the brightness? While I don't like sunlight through windows to be rendered grey (unless it is a grey day) handling the glare from them is probably the weakest part of this image. I know Diliff often liked grey overcast days for cathedrals, since direct sunlight is difficult and any passing clouds can make a stitched panorama fail. I have found in some of my HDR attempts, with 5 steps of exposure, that the brightest one can have too much glare and best just not used. -- Colin (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see your work here again. Fine panorama and, as ever with this type of image, great fun to view. Cmao20 (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20 Thank you, it is also a pleasure to read you, you and the guys are like a kind of platonic family. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per Colin, it's a shame there's so much glare coming through the stained glass windows. I also agree with his suggestion that this was not optimal light in which to take this panorama. This is certainly a good document, and maybe my screen is at fault, but I'm not sure it's an FP because I think it could be significantly better on a different day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a carousel or a church? I can not quite recognize it. ;-) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spurzem: Dear Lothar Spurzem, It is a church but the flat distortion of a 360 view makes the structure look like a very elaborate circus carousel. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. But I do not like these unnatural images, though they are very artfully and with much work designed. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spurzem: If you haven't done it before, please click here to view correctly the image. This type of image could be difficult to evaluate, especially in WLM, some jurors may not know this. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are at least 4 stitching issues in the arches (top right area, I added a note) Poc o² 13:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poc Thanks for add the note. I think that the version uploaded was not my last version. Can I upload the fixed version if the WLM date has passed? (This is an image that was uploaded during the contest month and the image is participating) --Wilfredor (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor, IIRC this has been asked before and I think it is ok. I think anything that would satisfy COM:OVERWRITE is fine (fixing dust spots, stitching issues, tilt) but major changes (significant exposure change, different projection, major crop) could be a problem. In this case, I suspect the jurors would not see the flaw nor notice the change. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin, Recently I had a conversation on IRC with others WLM participating users and commons users about the images in 360 degrees. Juries use the Montage tool and the photo is not displayed 360° and It's important that the WLM jury can access to the image description (page in commons) where the link to display it correctly in 360 degrees is located. I have created a task in Montage project github to add this feature to Montage and I would like you to follow it (by clicking on the follow button of the task), that way, someone could attend it, however, I don't think that this improvement is ready for the current WLM event, so it would be a good idea maybe to communicate this to the jury. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Booth sift 05:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Postkarte KG Heuschreck 1905.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 15:38:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Caricature card issued by "Carnevals-Gesellschaft Heuschreck Trier" (1905), reproduced, uploaded and nominated by: Palauenc05
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably support, but is there any additional context available anywhere? (more on what's depicted?) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As in QI nomination --Llez (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm with Rhododendrites: I'd like more information about what the captions mean (not a direct translation, the context for them). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've added some further information to the file description. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you. I wonder how people feel about whether this image should be digitally restored for FP. I'm not sure but think it's worth a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my ignorance, but I'm trying to determine its significance/meaning. It is the board of the postcard company itself, so sort of an internal joke to say they're run by alcoholics? Is that the gist? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Trier is situated in a wine region, the Mosel valley. The labels of the bottles signify where the board members come from. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add that info to the file description, it's helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The chap on the top of the Kupferberg Gold bottle looks like Theodore Roosevelt. Cmao20 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Bargerveen 23-08-2019. (actm.). 24.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 15:11:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural #Netherlands Restoring bog.
Info Bargerveen Meerstalblok. Peat lake with growing peat bog. Successful restoration of high moor biotope in Bargerveen, province of Drenthe on the German border. A project in collaboration with Germany.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: lacks wow for me, sorry. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing anything with wow here. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I see what you were getting at but it just doesn't work with this light. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per others – lacks whow, not a convincing composition for me. Wider angle and closer to the pond might work better. --Kreuz schnabel 18:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but with landscape photos I'd like to see something more striking. Maybe the same composition would work better in different light conditions. Still very nice though, I'd grade it as a very good QI, not FP but close! --Podzemnik (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extraordinary. -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bontecou Lake Milky Way panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 22:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy#Sky
Info created by Juliancolton - uploaded by Juliancolton - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Caught sight of this on the QI page and it's the kind of image that, for me at least, makes you stop scrolling and go 'wow.' I particularly like it because it seems more carefully composed than a lot of these Milky-Way panoramas you see (IMO better than the ones that are already FP). It's a bit noisy, as one would surely expect for ISO 6400, but I think it's worth a feature, especially seeing it's by a Commons user. See what you think. Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cmao20 for the nomination. There are some technical flaws here—noisy shadows, trailing stars, distorted stitching in some areas. The first two may be mitigated somewhat by the relatively high resolution and lack of critical information in the bottom third of the frame; there's nothing to be gained by zooming in at 100% to study a generic pond in the dark. I do believe this has significant merit as an illustration of Milky Way visibility in suburban areas. This was photographed merely 90 miles from one of the largest and brightest cities in the Western Hemisphere, so it's nice to show that deep-sky observing is often much closer to major population centers than many individuals believe possible. If there is enough interest, I could take a stab at re-processing this with an eye for FP standards, ensuring a more level horizon, and taking care of hot pixels (mind, some of the yellow-green "hot pixels" are actually fireflies!). Not sure there's much more to be done about the high-ISO noise... even after pushing the exposure another couple stops in LR and further locally brightening the shadows, I'm relatively happy with the retained detail and acceptable quality of grain. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Make any improvements you like, but it's already an FP to me, because I find it excellent at 300% of my 13-inch laptop screen. I also really like how the curve of the Milky Way is echoed by the curve of the near shore of the lake, among many other nice things. And I've also done some observation of the night sky in Dutchess County, as my girlfriend has sung in the chorus at the Bard Summerscape. There is a little light pollution from Newburgh and Beacon, but most of the sky is quite clear in good weather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thank you, and you've got it exactly right. Although dark sites in the mid-Hudson Valley get a little harder to find each year, they still exist, and one can catch some beautiful views of the night sky. I'm glad you've had such an opportunity. It also helps to plan out times when the galactic core is in a relatively dark "direction" from desired observing spots. Like you say, light pollution is particularly problematic in the POU-SWF-MGJ corridor, so early summer is often best for Dutchess County, before the MW migrates too far southwest. Feel free to look me up the next time you're in town! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't know the best settings for this type of image, but ISO6400 has produced a very grainy image. Charles (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, as already discussed on a previous nom of mine, we basically have 30 sec to shoot a picture with a wide angle lens (as it is the case here as well), and very little light. Expose longer than that, and the stars have moved too much and render as very noticeable trails. So that means highest acceptable ISO, and biggest aperture. Both are not quality friendly, but it's better to get a bad quality picture than a good quality nothing. And it's not so bad here. The noise is very well controled on the sky. The ground is grainy but acceptable I think. As mentionned, Some people shoot the foreground with lower iso and then composite the whole thing. - Benh (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interesting explanation Benh. This is indeed why I nominated the image; the noise in the sky is really quite minimal, and although the ground is noisy, it's really not that bad considering the technical issues. The composition and the beauty of the motif make up for unavoidable technical failings to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would have not been possible to shoot this at a lower ISO unless I wanted to get into aggressive compositing, which in my opinion always leads to unnatural-looking results, even when done skillfully. My noise-mitigation technique relies mainly on using one of the best low-light cameras available. I'm sure one day, with ever-improving tech, we will be able to look back in disbelief at what was considered "acceptable" noise, but for now this is probably approaching the upper bounds of noise management at ISO 6400 (and then some). And while I could have earned another 1.3(?) stops of light by using an f/1.8 lens instead of f/2.8... have ya ever seen the way stars look at f/1.8? Yuck. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could have earned another 1.3(?) stops > it's (2.8 / 1.8)^2 = 2.4 more light :) (square because we talk about area), so it's still a tricky question in my opinion :) - Benh (talk)

Stupid me, you talked about stops yes... (sorry) - Benh (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK for those wondering: 1 stop = 2 times more light = (f number / squareroot(2)). So going from f/4 to f/2.8 = roughly squareroot(2) = two times more light = 1 stop. So going from 2.8 to 1.8 = 2.4 more light = 1.2 stops. Hope I did get it right. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question How many pictures did you shoot to get this please? - Benh (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benh, this was created using seven vertical frames with lots of overlap. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice panoramic astrophoto. - Benh (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks great at lower resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A stunning view of the heart of our home galaxy. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As so often with Julians' photos, there is a kind of poetry in it. I've not seen anyone here managed to achieve that sort of quality. It goes beyond just technical knowhow. --Cart (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart – this image is not just excellent, it is also poetic. --Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support And it's something quite peculiar
Something shimmering and white
Leads you here despite your destination
Under the Milky Way tonight
It will be nice to have some more FPs from Dutchess County. I envy you this image ... down here in Orange County, there are not as many large lakes that could be used to get this view (and Newburgh is a bigger source of light pollution).
I'd also wonder what the view would look like to the north at the summer solstice ... would a 25-second exposure at that time capture any hint of lingering sunlight in the upper atmosphere that is normally not visible to the naked eye? Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: if you are really interested, I checked your position and I bet it would. What else? Next June solstice will have perfect conditions for star gazing (no moon) so why not giving it a shot? :) - Benh (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full on starry rainbow all the way! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Sky

File:Cour d'honneur est palais abbatial de l'Abbaye de la Cambre.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 23:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Belgium
Info created by Fawaz.tairou - uploaded by Fawaz.tairou - nominated by Fawaz.tairou -- Fawaz.tairou (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fawaz.tairou (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments on your other nomination. FPs are supposed to be among the very best on this site. Do you really think this is one of the very best? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, even no QI because of the cropped car --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad idea, still the viewing angle is too narrow. I’d expect the building and the central lawn area to be fully within the frame. Maybe you should learn how to stitch panoramic images from multiple shots, this could have been helpful here. Then, most of the image appears to be in dull lighting. Maybe you ought to brighten your images before publishing them – post-processing has always been an important part of the photographic work, even before digital imaging. Still there’s the image quality, the poor level of detail a phone cam is capable of. Have a look at some FPs and compare them with your work at 100 percent view to see what I mean. --Kreuzschnabel 18:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you like this one? 5 minutes in Gimp: Perspective correction, crop, tone mapping, gradation. --Kreuz schnabel 18:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. For me it doesn't have very much wow compositionally, and the image quality is probably only just QI. A useful picture, but not more than that. Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As noted in other !votes, this could have been a great panoramic. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pacher-Altar Sonntagsseite, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2019 at 04:03:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

The Baptism of Christ
The Threefold Temptation of Christ
The Wedding at Cana
Christ Feeding the Multitude
The Attempted Stoning of Christ
The Cleansing of the Temple
Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery
The Raising of Lazarus

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info St. Wolfgang Altarpiece at the Catholic parish- and pilgrimage church St. Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, Upper Austria. All paintings of the view for Sundays with closed inner wings. Michael Pacher, 1471–79.
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm impressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Charles (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastische Arbeit! --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Best thing I've seen here in a long time. Cmao20 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Good job!--Famberhorst (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somehow this gets me. Probably the fact it is a set, and all the pictures look very consistent. - Benh (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive and well done! --GRDN711 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding.--Ermell (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent! Henry39 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmmmmm well done Uoaei1. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Berthold and Cma20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Statue of Sylvester II in Aurillac 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 22:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a wow-composition like most statues, but it is very sharp, the shadows are done excellent and I don't see any distortion. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I think it takes more than a straight shot at a statue to get FP. Fine QI, not FP in my view. And the base is not properly aligned (converging lines) which I find a bit annoying.- Benh (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel - there's no real wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Place Nationale in Montauban 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 22:06:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry, but the streetlight in the center ruins the feeling for me--Booth sift 05:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a fan of the framing, maybe too much or not enough... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balsemien 21-08-2019. (d.j.b). 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2019 at 15:06:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family : Balsaminaceae
Info Balsaminaceae This Impatiens balfourii is much smaller than the general giant Impatiens glandulifera. The flowers are also smaller and more intense in color.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: very prominent cloned streak, see note. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still very visible. Instead of cloning, healing brush should be used. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Refine. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~but the Cosmonaut is right about the cloned area.~~ Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The shadow at bottom left is distracting; I think I could support if it were cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: thanks for your comment. The shade is from the garden. I can reduce the shadow somewhat but it remains.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: there are still some noticeable artifacts (like the discontinuous spider thread), but great photo otherwise. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Estonian Museum of Natural History - trilobite - Hydrocephalus.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2019 at 19:23:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Biology
Info created by Vladislav Egorov (3D model) & Jaagup Metsalu (render) - uploaded by Estonian Museum of Natural History - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info It was created for the exhibition "The Secrets of Ancient Seas" and brought to wiki as a part of bigger GLAM cooperation.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it a 3D computer model? It has harsh (flash?) lighting. Charles (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3D model it is. Probably they considered that kind of lightning more suitable for bringing out details or something. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thanks, weird decision. Charles (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not FP for me due to the weird lighting --Booth sift 00:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguana terrestre (Conolophus subcristatus), isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 12.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2019 at 17:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Order_:_Squamata_(Lizards_and_Snakes)
Info Detail of a Galapagos land iguana (Conolophus subcristatus), Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 17:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fear this is overexposed and not very sharp. Charles (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't understand this review, Charles, where do you see loss of detail due to overexposure?! Regarding sharpness, I don't think that we have many images in the project of iguanas with this sharpness, --Poc o² 18:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was loss of detail, just over-exposure of the whole image. True, there aren't any other FP candidates for this species, though I prefer this one. Charles (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles: Indeed, that's a good one, but detail is probably half of this candidate. Regarding the overexposure overall, I've reduced it a bit. Poc o² 09:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Sharpness is still the issue, but I've gone neutral. Charles (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that it's not as sharp as it could be, but when downsized to 3000px across, all the areas that are in focus are perfectly sharp. I would support the smaller version if that were all that was available, so I support this one. Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light and distracting background, on top of the sharpness issues. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel and Charles. At the same resolution, I like the other photo better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the background very nice--Booth sift 00:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Theatre in Orange 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2019 at 17:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info uploaded by B2Belgium, the rest by me Benh (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very old panorama (2008 !) but I think I gives quite a good idea of the space there, despite the compression of the FOV. Not sure it's still up to today standards, but I don't see we have better view of that remarkable monument. -- Benh (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems OK to me, not perfect quality but very dramatic view. Cmao20 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: it aged surprisingly well. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent compo ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice leading lines. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rose hips Rosa rugosa Hansa 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2019 at 10:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: lots of blown highlights, unfortunately. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny objects will produce some totally white highlights, it is in the nature of light. I don't agree with the idea of toning down anything white in a photo to a dull gray. --Cart (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the idea of toning down anything white in a photo to a dull gray > Thank you! You are officially my hero Cart (but I can agree the light is a tad harsh, which is probably what Cosmonaut means. Wouldn't have hurt to use a reflector or wait for overcast weather) - Benh (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Benh (that would be heroine). ;) Me and Cosmonaut (formerly know as CCCP) have had these conversation about highlights before. Living in a dark part of the world I simply like bright parts in a photo if they occur naturally and can interact well with the rest of the photo for some reason. Btw, I forgot since you withdrew your bamboo photo. If you do a bit of color correction on the leaves to get the more natural colors, the white light doesn't appears so bright and "blown". I did a quick and dirty fix to check this: here. It does however change the whole color scheme in the photo and the Flickr/Instagram wow effect gets lost but it's more along the line of a FPC photo. I too like to keep cool light set by nature or play around with colors and things you can do in Photoshop, but FPC is very seldom the right venue for such experiments. (tried it, got burned) That's for sites more interested in artistry and further development of photography. --Cart (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I remember I was a bit frustrated by how conservative FPC is. I can tell you after a long break that I feel a difference (and it's good). I was also working on a fix to my bamboo photo (this is work in progress). I don't really get feedbacks on Flickr, so hard to know when you go overboard. Here I learnt a few mistakes I did. Thank you for the comment and the picture heroine :) - Benh (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, once you highlights are truly blown, there isn't much you can do; toning them down to dull grey is certainly not a remedy. Regardless, there shouldn't be much white to begin with on low albedo objects like vegetation, it's not polished metal after all. For stationary objects that are easily accessible, we ought to expect technical aspects to be handled more diligently. In this case, it's simply a matter of too much light allowed to enter the camera. Choosing a higher f-number would likely have solved that, while also improving the depth of field. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmonaut Not sure why you think a higher f-num fixes that... there are other ways to let less light enter the camera and as per below, this is the equivalent of shooting at f/11 on FF camera. - Benh (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose DOF could be deeper (why f/4?). --Ivar (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar, busy background so I wanted a shallow DoF, but please keep in mind that this is a small sensor bridge camera so f/4 roughly equals f/8 or f/9 on a full frame DSLR. --Cart (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

f/11 :) (2.73 crop factor). - Benh (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx Benh! I was doing a rough guesstimate since I'm currently out traveling. --Cart (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Has its shortcomings but the colors are irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Area in focus has great detail but dof is indeed an issue. Furthermore I am not wowed by the subject Poc o² 13:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry, but this doesn't appeal to me--Booth sift 00:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought I’d give it a look – though it’s quite ordinary a subject, it could be an extraordinary shot of it. Afraid it’s not. Red channel seems to be blown (turning into blue towards the glare spots), and the slightly-out-of-focus areas have an unnatural look as if having been oversharpened. DoF too shallow IMHO, the fruit could be overall sharp. --Kreuz schnabel 16:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tower Bridge from the Shard London Bridge. Evening 2019-09-22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2019 at 18:39:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#United Kingdom
Info I won a free ticket for The View from The Shard last Sunday. The weather was overcast grey all day but at sunset the sun popped out from the clouds and lit up some of the city. This view east takes in Tower Bridge and Canary Wharf, which is London's second financial district. At 244m it is high enough to see the river Thames snake around. Photography conditions aren't great with tripods banned and dirty windows that reflect white pillars. So a polarising lens made the sunset exposure even longer at 1/6s, handheld. The view is similar to what we see from drones, though no private drone would be permitted here. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I know it would be unfair to oppose given my last drones shot. But as you said, the quality is a bit low, and the lighting doesn't give that special touch to this shot. It's even rather dull if you ask me. I wouldn't have used a polarising filter, but of those flexible hoods you attach to your lens and then stick to the window. This is very good at removing reflections. - Benh (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality, strong noise, details loss, plane colors --Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice for me, the light isn't a dramatic sunset but it's pretty in its way. Cmao20 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak quality, boring light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A possible FP, but not detailed enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Basile. I don't blame you for trying on this one, but the city just looks so old and tired out here (which, given recent events, is probably how it feels). I wonder how this angle would work for a sunrise (especially on that day, the equinox), if you could possibly get there. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality, blurry. -- Pofka (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others sorry --Booth sift 05:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20. Kestreltail (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:City Hall Station (32120)a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2019 at 02:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Skylight above the tracks of the abandoned City Hall subway station in New York City, which closed in 1943. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support FPC regulars may have seen a different skylight from the same station nominated a couple months ago, so a word on why I'm nominating another image from that same station: There are two different skylight designs in the station. The other one, which is the sole circular skylight, centered above the mezzanine, and this rectangular one, which in sets of three forms an arch over the tracks/platform. Many/most of the others of this kind are broken (e.g.). You can see this one is in rough shape, too. I find the design and deterioration pleasing to look at. Regardless of the different designs, they're just very different kinds of images. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one doesn't work for me, sorry. I don't think it looks particularly sharp and the light areas don't look very good.--Peulle (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and unsharp, in spite of visible sharpening artifacts along the "veins" unless I am much mistaken. The other image has a considerable amount of atmospere from the skylight’s surrounding. --Kreuz schnabel 09:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a sucker for abandoned places and this one radiates melancholy. --Cart (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but per Kreuzschnabel, sorry. --A.Savin 13:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very contrasted geometrical patterns, lacking texture and content in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination think we can safely withdraw this one — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:133r Cod.hist.qt.298.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2019 at 23:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Textiles
Info created by Paul Jenisch - uploaded by Dounia67 - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is it just me, or is this dully lit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several issues. Please note that the 'Non-photographic media' is now divided in several subcategories so you need to be more specific, I have fixed this for you. Bad categorization, just "Books" is not good enough, now fixed. Then there is the description, it says nothing about this work of art. It is clearly a silk embroidery made on a blue base fabric and pasted into the book in some way. That medium is not mentioned. (It kind of reminds me of those embroidered postcards from Spain that were so popular in the 60s.) So how is this Paul Jenisch connected to the book? Did he write the book or just compiled it? Did he make the illustrations, the embroidery, the original for the textile? The description says "Restoration: Ezarate". I can understand restoring a photo, but restoring an embroidery? The result is not as good as the original. The detail in the blue fabric supporting the embroidery is almost gone. It would also be nice with a file name that is something more than just a file number in an archive. --Cart (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may not be able to be helped, but this just seems unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with Cart, needs more information, such as a dimensions, also the crop seems random?--BevinKacon (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Clearwater, Canterbury, New Zealand 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2019 at 02:27:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info All by me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support not sure about the trees, but very nice scenery and sunlight skimming the top of the mountains. - Benh (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh I think that trees make a bit more interesting. I played around and took some shots without them but it looks kind of plain and sad to me. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a version that shows the entire tree on the right and left? If so, I'd like to see that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek Good to see you back here. No I don't, I've uploaded all usable material. Here is one more shot from that location. It was pretty cold that morning. As I didn't have gloves (the forecasting said 18 degrees during the day so I got excited so much that I forgot to check the night temperatures which were below freezing), each touch of my steel tripod was a pain so after a few shots I just went back to my sleeping bag to wait for the sun :) --Podzemnik (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's quite a good picture, and I'd be inclined to support it for FP if it's nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support And spring comes to New Zealand ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Slowly though, my tent still gets icy from inside. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20190414 Γέφυρα Αλικιανού 1593.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 10:32:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Greece
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alikianos bridge, built in 1908, after its collapse during a severe storm on 25 February 2019. On the left can be seen a temporary pass over Keritis river made by the local residents, showing the crucial role it played to them. Support -- C messier (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this image doesn't seem to me special enough as a FP, the composition and lighting don't look very appealing to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. Lots of interesting features at intersecting thirds make it a rewarding image to view. High-quality of course, too. Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really unappealing light and the composition looks random -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just too much going on in this image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Random composition for me too. I think it’s the frontal view on the collapsed structure. Would work better a bit more from the right, with the temporary crossing in the background. Please crop out the distracting scrub at the bottom, it doesn’t add anything useful. --Kreuz schnabel 18:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not extraordinary, fail to find its main subject. -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's the subject of the photo? I can't identify it--Booth sift 05:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Eiffeltoren, Bestanddeelnr 255-8668.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2019 at 16:55:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Willem van de Poll - uploaded by Mr.Nostalgic - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what's supposed to be so special about this ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inside the main Railway station in Chittagong 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2019 at 18:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Kritzolina nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but I think I'd like to see something a bit more interesting or creative for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but it doesn't wow me. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, no wow. Just a typical wall as the background doesn't wow me--Booth sift 00:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no "wow" in this picture. --Gnosis (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You know, this would have worked as a found abstraction without the text. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Feminist (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. Account created today. Please read the guidelines: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loire River in Blois 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2019 at 20:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info A view of the Loire River in France and the buildings along it. Quality is not perfect, but the composition and dramatic light make up for that to me. Created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little wow. We see more of the non appealing left bank than Blois. It looks also undersaturated and "over clarified" - Benh (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This kind of scene/lighting can work with the right subject, but a French town with grey rooftops is not it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, particularly KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry, but the town doesn't fit. Everything just seems so grey: the sky, the water, and the houses. Grey isn't the most interesting of colors. --Booth sift 05:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More Blah than Blois ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama of Le Havre, September 2019.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2019 at 09:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info Le Havre, France, totally destroyed in WW2, was rebuilt from scratch by modernist architect Auguste Perret who turned the city into a concrete wonderland. In 2005, UNESCO inscribed it as a World Heritage Site. I took the picture aboard a cruise ship - hence the rather unusual perspective. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support First time I've seen aliens announcing their arrival by landing a sculpture. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and execution, good job done! --Basotxerri (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the light and sharpness are not so good. --A.Savin 12:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the EF 24-105L isn’t the best Canon has to offer, true. It’s still decent imo. As for the light, I really disagree. You can’t beat a late afternoon sun. A little later and the shadows would become overwhelming, a little earlier and the light would be too flat. –Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the place, but all just appears washed out (including sky, grass, facades etc.) --A.Savin 13:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to carefully address the issues you mentioned without changing the image's original character too much, @A.Savin, Basotxerri, Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’d happily support a version with a bit less sharpening applied. This is overdone, just look at the person walking in front of the container arc. --Kreuzschnabel 17:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I just realized you uploaded a sharpened version, that’s why I’m saying the opposite of A.Savin :D That’s the problem of editing a nominee during discussion period. We’re talking of different images now. --Kreuzschnabel 17:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I definitely don't like the look of the current version. I'm not so impressed with the view either, though. UNESCO World Heritage or not, a lot of the buildings have an uninteresting sameness to my eyes, and I would oppose the photo as is. A crop on the right and left to encompass the church with the tower and the colorful sculpture and building with the clock tower might work. I'll try to mark proposed crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is not great, the facades are in shadow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Considering all (occassionally conflicting) suggestions is a tough job. But here you go, my "Director's Cut", if you will. Redeveloped and cropped. It's a different image now, so pinging everybody: Cart, Basotxerri, A.Savin, Kreuz schnabel, Ikan Kekek, King of ♥ ♦ ♣♠ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apart from the crop, the new version is hardly better than the old one. The sky is washed-out. Many of the buildings are overexposed. Do you sincerely think that if you shot a picture in poor light, you still can "synthesize" good light in Photoshop afterwards?

And there is another question. Is the sculpture made of containers maybe too prominent in the picture? No FoP in France, you remember? --A.Savin 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Not even 10% (probably closer to 5%) and the topic is clearly Le Havre's UNESCO world heritage downtown, so we can consider the "art" thing stands in the way. - Benh (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:P1210671.jpg-Logo Orchideenwelt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2019 at 14:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures # Statues outdoors
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose There’s a dark halo plus a white seam around the shape, as if it was both over-tonemapped and over-sharpened. Level of detail doesn’t whow me. Also, I’d prefer a higher point of view so there’s more of the background visible instead of blue sky only but that might be a matter of taste. --Kreuz schnabel 17:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting logo, but the background, especially above the logo, is not nearly as interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technical problems mentioned by Kreuzschnabel, also missing description of changes made in photoshop.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Kreuz--Booth sift 04:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auto's op de Champs-Elysées, met op de achtergrond de verlichte showroom van Cit, Bestanddeelnr 191-0378.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2019 at 19:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created by Willem van de Poll - uploaded by Mr.Nostalgic - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I kind of like the ambience. --Cart (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very arty, nice find. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood, beautiful composition with those two rows of cars, and surprisingly good dynamic range. - Benh (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 and Benh. --Aristeas (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eastern screech owl (44333).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2019 at 23:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Strigiformes_(Owls)
Info an eastern screech owl rescued after suffering an eye injury created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, I wish the DoF were better, too. Nominating because I like the focus on the eyes and it's just so cute (also, we have very few highlighted pictures of this species). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- agree Rhod. I was wondering about the different pupil sizes til I read the file description. Seven Pandas (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but let down by DoF, background and crop. Charles (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Charles... a bit sad about the distracting background. But agree with nominator as well - Benh (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute and unique. Cmao20 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I find the background distracting, especially the left brighter strokes leading towards the eye. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles Poc o² 19:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support With those eyes, how can you look anywhere else in the photo. --Cart (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If only the background was less cluttered! Still good wow with sharp eyes. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Feminist (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. Account created today. Please read the guidelines: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 00:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Passionsblume IMG 3432.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2019 at 17:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Passifloraceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this a lot. Cmao20 (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's quite incredible flower. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cmao20, Podzemnik, Ikan Kekek, and Martin Falbisoner: I fixed the FP category, which now links to our existing FPs of this flower. This includes File:Passiflora caerulea (makro close-up).jpg which was a POTY finalist. This flower is widely grown in gardens, so we have lots of photos of it, including close-ups and even insects on the flowers, which includes this and this FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Colin, I was wondering why the category didn't link to any existing FPs of the flower, especially as Franz van Duns' FP was quite recent and I remembered voting for it. Nevertheless this continues to be FP level for me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think it is a P. caerulea. There are about 530 different Passiflora species and this one does not look like a caerulea. --Llez (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moahim (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Altolamprologus compressiceps - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 00:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created by and uploaded by Llez - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something went wrong when I created the page, would anyone be able to fix it? --Booth sift 00:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I usually don't have any love for bokeh balls, but these are quite pleasant. Pretty fish, too. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good find, I quite like the bokeh here per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Boothsift for the nomination --Llez (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moahim (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:National Cemetery Douaumont.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2019 at 21:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#France
Info Uploaded by B2Belgium - the rest by me -- Benh (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another oldie. Will get back at recent stuffs later (if still here by then!). I don't think we have that many pictures of this kind, do we? -- Benh (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's this and this. --Cart (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More close to the first. The crosses are only incidental on the second. And I didn't say we don't have any ;) (please don't dig to get the pics to prove me wrong!) - Benh (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it the wrong way, You did ask. ;) People like to be able to compare with existing FPs, and in this case it actually shows the uniqueness of your nom. --Cart (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

usually one asks this kind of question in the hope none actually takes the time to check ;) - Benh (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support A tad low on sharpness but the pattern is really striking. --Cart (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup :( so so lens (10-22 on my 7D) - Benh (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wish it was sharper but the compo is quite striking. Nice light too. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I love the composition, but I'm not at all sure the sharpness is sufficient for an FP in 2019. So I'm not sure I'll vote, but if I do, it might be to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of sharpness and the tight top crop Poc o² 08:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Strong wow factor, but, per above, not great sharpness considering the relatively low resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Poco --Llez (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to tweak the sharpening this week-end. Thanks for the inputs. - Benh (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is the WB a bit yellowish? --Basotxerri (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I tweaked the WB, and I tried changing the sharpening. I don't think the sharpness was improved. - Benh (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like you said, still not really sharp. The composition is probably among the best on Commons, but the sharpness isn't. The result is a lack of support from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Too tight crop at the top in my view. It looks shrunk. I wonder what is this thin line, darker at the end, and aesthetically would like to see more of this background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I prefer not so tight crop from above. --Moahim (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Victoria Memorial Illuminated at Night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 01:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#India
Info created by DeepanjanGhosh - uploaded by DeepanjanGhosh - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this picture definitely has a lot more encyclopedic value (and deserves to be a featured pic on Wikipedia) than the previous one I think it falls short here on Commons. There are lots of burned out patches around the lights and the framing doesn't work well either (too much space at the bottom or too little at top). -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wouldn't make FP on English Wikipedia. Charles (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the image quality is actually quite good, on the whole, but I agree with KennyOMG about the framing. I get that the idea is to show this beautiful building in its context, but it means that a large proportion of the frame is featureless darkness. Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support My first thinking was that I'd have preferred this is taken at dusk, but I wonder then if the pond wouldn't have ruin the composition. But yes, it's really really dark. - Benh (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Perhaps it would work with a crop but for now the most interesting seems lost in the darkness. Boring night is occupying too much place -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile (I must confess I am also amused by the filename: "... Illuminated at Night". As opposed to "Illuminated in the Daytime"?) Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not opposed, just specified, since it could be "illuminated at dusk", "at blue hour", etc. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I like this light and composition, but quality is insufficient. --Moahim (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clematis 'Parisienne' 2019-05-29 09-20-43 (C).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 07:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Interior of a clematis flower. Stacked from 55 frames with Helicon Focus: All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work Poc o² 08:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 55 frames?! Wow! The result is definitely FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is really a photo that makes you sit up and take notice! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vivid colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~not sure if textures are not processing artifacts but~~ very impressive. - Benh (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Moahim (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: A beast of a picture. Pictures like this make me so proud of this hyper-capable community to which I've contributed in the past. Stunning shot, Ermell. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Petersburg Lakhta center 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2019 at 23:11:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Ad Meskens - uploaded by Ad Meskens - nominated by Kestreltail -- Kestreltail (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kestreltail (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't understand this nomination. The picture quality is very poor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality. --A.Savin 03:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is far below FP standards, maybe even QI--Booth sift 04:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boothsift QI standsrds are the same like FP. Indeed a picture with lower quality could be FP (compensated with a big deal of wow) but not QI Poc o² 06:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: Theoretically, yes. But in reality? No. Having looked at some recent QI's, I can guarantee you not all of them would meet the quality standards for FP and visa versa. --Booth sift 06:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boothsift: I can't speak for everybody but this is the way it should be. Of course there are more eyes here for a candidate than in QI, but still, we should all bear this in mind when reviewing QIs. Sorry, a bit off-topic here. Poc o² 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Obviously not FP. --A.Savin 13:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2019 - Donaunixenbrunnen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 15:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Moahim -- Moahim (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moahim (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
very very weak support Your photos are beautiful. But I think you should do yourself a favor and get this. Lr is everything but the good choice to process Fuji's x-trans raw. Or you use the "enhance" feature, which is very slow, but very good (at least on par with Iridient). - Benh (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank You for the link - I'm looking for another RAW-converter and have tried Capture One, but it is not easy to change converter quickly after years of use. --Moahim (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an Lr plugin too :) so it shouldn't disrupt your workflow. It adds an option in Lr for in app conversion but I personally batch convert my RAF into DNG with it after upload to my computer before importing into Lr. The caveat is that the DNG sizes are bigger... - Benh (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, very dramatic composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you add a geotag? --Kreuzschnabel 20:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Moahim (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really very nice. Yes, geotag is desirable -- and in this case it's very easy to add: just use the coordinates you see in the Wikidata infobox of Category:Donaunixenbrunnen. --A.Savin 21:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Virtual-Pano (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Podzemnik (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Feminist (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. Account created today. Please read the guidelines: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dactylorhiza incarnata infructescence - Niitvälja bog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 18:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by Ivar (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautifully composed and a really impressive closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special light, nice bokeh -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is great but the subject not really wowing to me, sorry Poc o² 13:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some color noise in the background, but nowhere near enough to ruin the image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moahim (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales

File:The Baar - View from Fürstenberg.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 05:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the picture, there is much to see. But the quality is far from good. Maybe try a better lens. -- -donald- (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think, it is a bad lens. The panorama shows a landscape with a distance up to 40 km and you can't get all pixel-sharp over such a distace (e.g. the Rottweil Test Tower - see annotation - in a distance of 35km is clearly visible !). On the right, you can see a flying bird. This bird can be easily identified as a Red kite, Milvus milvus. So I think the quality can't be too bad. --Llez (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This picture is 30,895 × 3,605 pixels. It's of great quality at 50%. Yet it's not good enough? It is for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but... a bit boring. --Peulle (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure what it comes from – this image is entirely overcast by something I’d call sharpened unsharpness. The edges of areas are sharp while the areas themselves show too little detail. I added an annotation to the barn in the foreground which is just 500 metres away from the camera. Summer day afternoons are hardly the best time to take distant shots because the air is too uncalm with the heat. --Kreuz schnabel 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Immense panorama and I find lots of visual interest in it at full-res, but Kreuzschnabel is IMO correct about the lack of detail and the oversharpening at full size. Do you have the original RAWs? I'm surprised the quality is not a little better, although I guess it might be the heat-haze effect Kreuzschnabel mentions. Cmao20 (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @Llez: , I think this overall is a good image. However, IMO it is somewhat lacking in quality and the composition could be a tad bit more interesting. Otherwise, I would have voted support. Sorry --Booth sift 00:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin - Treptower Park- Sowjet Monument.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2019 at 11:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments and memorials
Info created by Virtual-Pano - uploaded by Virtual-Pano - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Virtual-Pano}}|]] -- Virtual-Pano (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Virtual-Pano (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Totally over-processed, especially the sky. Could you please dial it down to a more natural look. --Cart (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cylindrical perspectives and light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your remarks. One can surely have different opinions about the light. The projection is equirectangular --Virtual-Pano (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See on Wikipedia, the equirectangular projection is also called "equidistant cylindrical projection" -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Colors don't seem believable. And is this meant to be a 3D photo? If so, please link the 3D viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it's not. The caption states it is a crop, so linking to the pano viewer won't do it any good. And 3D and 360° pano aren't the same. - Benh (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, they aren't. I don't like this weird projection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but this light doesn't work for me.--Peulle (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Misleading projection, unrealistic rendering. A bit sad it is only a crop of the 360x180° pano. And looks soft across the frame except on the foremost squares in the middle. - Benh (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but that massive spot of bright cloud is not doing it any favours, for me. I also agree with Benh that it's a bit soft. Nice idea though. Cmao20 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others--Booth sift 00:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others.--Vulp here 09:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019 - Чернівці - Єврейське кладовище - 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2019 at 17:22:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Ukraine
Info created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but I'm not seeing any obvious reason for B&W. It doesn't add anything to me; also I think the image might have been better if it were shot from a higher vantage point. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Striking and sad, and the composition is broken like the headstones, so I feel a metaphor. It's all subjective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This works for me, but I would suggest a little less contrast --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the compo is quite good, but the sky don't work well in monochrome IMO, it tend to makes the image a bit too dark. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This light is not working for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Organ, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2019 at 18:53:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Musical instruments
Info The pipes of the Walker organ in the Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, which fill the east end of the north aisle. The organ was built in 1854 for another church and transferred here in 1982 when that church closed. You can see the position of the organ in this photo. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The upper part is too dark for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Michielverbeek I'm confused how the natural darkness of recessed shaded pipework can be a reason to oppose? And the 500-year-old oak timbers are dark wood. You can see in this photo how shaded this corner of the church is. -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, it is natural darkness, but it makes my eyes go to the bottom. If this bottom would have been a strong wow, this darkness would have added something to the whole compostion --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Stitching errors~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Basile can you point out where you think there are stitching errors please -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second highest pipe at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Morin, I can see why you might think that, but it is just the shape of the pipe. See this frame. You said "stitching errors" -- are there any more areas you suspect? Basile, I know you are still relatively new here, but most reviewers do not oppose for trivial defects (a few pixels in a 100-million pixel image) or for easily fixable defects. -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then a lot of pixels yes but the subject itself, ordinary organ of a church with boring light, is less than average in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I wonder why nearly all of the pipes appear dirty, as if having been sprayed with something white from above. --Kreuzschnabel 18:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Kreuzschnabel I don't know. The stone columns in the church are very clean, so perhaps there was some spray when they were cleaned. -- Colin (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooops – really bad idea to not protect the organ before starting such work. --Kreuzschnabel 18:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'm only guessing. It is probably just chalky water that will wipe off with a wet cloth, but they'd need scaffolding to reach the top I think. -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems fairly uncontroversially FP to me. I can't see any stitching errors and if there are any, they are not sufficient to preclude my support given that they must be fairly small. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see anything wrong with the image. Why can't a dirty object be a FP also? Not everything has to be perfectly clean and as for stitching errors, I don't care anyways, --Booth sift 00:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because of the uneven light on the organ, but not all the things that should have been cleaned up. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good and interesting subject, but the upper part a bit more shadowed make it a bit unballanced, and I'm not a fan of the framing. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also surprised with the "dark upper part" reviews. That seems natural to me, so either we have different tastes (then no arguing) or some monitors are not properly calibrated (could be mine, I'll check). Personally I like it that the different rows are lit differently. It gives depth. - Benh (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - the detail and educational value is nice enough for support this well-done image, but the light (and perhaps the tight composition -- although I don't know what's just outside of the frame) takes away some of the wow — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhododendrites, the organ fills the end of the aisle so there is nothing left or right in this plane we can see. At the edges of the frame are the walls on either side of the aisle. To the left is a window on the north wall, which would be distractingly bright, and to the right is an arch and column, which wouldn't be interesting or even perhaps in focus. You can see the context in this photo. This is about as symmetrical a framing I can get for a non-symmetrical subject. Thanks for the support. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moahim (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I kind of like the gradual natural light. -- Cart (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yuri Gagarin (1961) - Restoration.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2019 at 16:01:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Arto Jousi - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Another version of this photo was nominated here not long ago: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yuri Gagarin (1961).jpg. --Cart (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As in the previous nom, I still think lampshade hats look bad in photos. --Cart (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I like the lampshade hats :) --Gnosis (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart. -- Pofka (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny look on his face, but that’s all I have to say in favour of this image. Apart from the distracting lamp shade there’s the harsh top light casting that ugly shadow under his chin. And even in 1961, sharp images were quite possible to take (a few weeks ago I have handled crisp sharp shots of a construction site in 1905). Apart from some historic value, I don’t see anything outstanding here, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 19:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:02 Lucca seen from Torre Guinigi.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 10:50:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created & uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks nice, but not particularly extraordinary.--Peulle (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree. Useful but not a fantastic composition, unbelievable sharpness or amazing light and atmospheric conditions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Königskerze P1250816.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2019 at 16:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Lamiales/Family:Scrophulariaceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, while it’s a nice enough specimen, and a shame we apparently haven’t got an FP of this species yet but this isn’t it (1) for composition: bottom part of the plant cut off, subject hidden within tall grass straws. A setting as in File:Brodogory_natural_reserve,_Poland_(2).JPG would be much better. (2) Busy, distracting background. (3) poor technical quality – much noise, some oversharpening, many of the blossoms partly blown. --Kreuz schnabel 18:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that this is not one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deservedly QI, but you weren't lucky with the very busy background. Cmao20 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kreuz — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. -- Pofka (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orchis militaris - Valkse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 16:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by Ivar (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, fine background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Is that just one photo, or is it stitched? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info 3 frames manually stacked. --Ivar (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It's probably good to mention that somewhere in the file description or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template is already there. --Ivar (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see: where it says "retouched picture". I hadn't seen that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you used the right template for focus stacking: {{Focus stacked image}}. The 'retouched' is for when you, for example, clone out bugs or bits straws. Focus stacking is just compiling different dofs, not actually changing the image. --Cart (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Moahim (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 08:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales

File:St Francis and Bernardine Monastery Church Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 08:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seriously, you really think it's among Diliff's best work? The donation box is disturbing, the windows are blown. --A.Savin 12:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: No it is not one of the best Diliff's interiors because all of them are already FPs. But his images quality is so high that even his mediocre pictures can easily compete with other authors pictures, therefore I think it is unfair to compare it with the Diliff's works only. This church windows are mostly transparent and are not fully covered with the stained glasses (good illustration of that even if these are not the same windows as seen in this interior photo), the day was obviously very sunny and so the light shines into the interior, however all the windows constructions are fully visible and are not blown out, so I think it is balanced. Other Diliff's interiors also includes light rays. Donations box is not a trash bin, so it does not disturb me - donations boxes are an integral part of the churches. -- Pofka (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Not IMO one of Diliff's stronger church interiors. I don't have it on my list of Diliff images to eventually get round to nominating, owing in large part to A. Savin's first criticism about the donation box, but also because of the distortion of the top lamp. The blown windows don't bother me especially as I usually prefer that bright white highlights are left that way instead of being artificially pulled back so they look grey-ish. So overall Diliff has done much stronger images; but ultimately, we are judging this based on whether it's amongst the best church interiors on Commons, not the best church interiors in Diliff's output. This image is not perfect, but it's very sharp as typical for Diliff's work, and depicts an important exemplar of Lithuanian Gothic architecture. Compared to this, a church interior which passed FP only last year, the image quality and sharpness are clearly superior. Based on those standards, I still do think this counts as one of the best images on Commons, so it should be FP for me; but it's not as clear-cut as most Diliff church interiors. Cmao20 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: Indeed. We must compare it with all the Commons pictures and not only with the Diliff's pictures. This church is one of the primary Gothic landmarks of Lithuania, so it is a very prominent object and this interior picture of it is easily the best one available in the Commons. Even in your provided Dillif's picture blue windows have that whitish effect and this Lithuanian one has a completely transparent glass windows, so the effect is slightly stronger, but is balanced and not blown out. -- Pofka (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Pofka, Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The donation box is disturbing. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should create a rule to every diliff church image. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin Poc o² 09:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Despite the issues already identified, it still gets over the FP bar for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Everything is good, even donation box (which is an integral element of the interior :) ), but verticals on the right are tilted for a little bit. --Moahim (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao20. And I actually like the donation box, it makes everything appear more real. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The donation box--Booth sift 00:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nuestra Señora de las Rocas, Perast, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 42.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 19:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Montenegro
Info Our Lady of the Rocks, Perast, Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 19:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really a great wow factor for me; the light is pretty ordinary which doesn't help. --Peulle (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo shows the small island like an extremely flat ship gilding through the waves. The light is OK for me – it emphasizes the island before the darker and subdued background. --Aristeas (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good image but Oppose per Peulle --GRDN711 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting building, nice misty atmosphere, reflection captured in full. Maybe not your most 'wow' image but still worthy of the star IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas, the ship parable is good. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. —kallerna (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Water is the largest and the most visible subject here, however I think the main subject was intended to be that building in the island. Therefore, the composition does not work for me. -- Pofka (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Pofka
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 19:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Śnieżne Stawki ks.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 20:08:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Poland
Info One of the "Śnieżne Stawki" ponds in the Giant Mountains, at an elevation of about 1240 m (4070 ft) below the northern cliffs of the top ridge. They’re fed by melted snow from the ridge with crystal clear water and usually fall dry during summer because they’re nowhere deeper than 1.5 m (5 ft). All by Kreuz schnabel 20:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kreuz schnabel 20:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rocks in the distance are very unsharp and the forest is too blurry (e.g., probably all the taller trees in the distance are completely blurry). -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like all, excepted the rocks at bottom left. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice enough place, but I'm sorry I just don't see the wow in this. With less going on at the sides of the photo so you could concentrate on the clear water, it could have been something. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough. Ordinary light and the composition is a bit awkward in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile in particular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and Colin. I like the idea but this is not the best that could come out of it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately per above. Good quality, but I'm not altogether enamoured with the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart--Booth sift 00:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart and Colin.--Vulp here 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019 - Nationalpark Jasmund - 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2019 at 14:18:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Info created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Moahim -- Moahim (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moahim (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Awesome view but lights seem unnatural and the halo over the treeline seems to support this had quite a bit of highlight/shadow work done. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely has plenty of wow. Cmao20 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. The light is unusual, but I'm not sure if it's implausible. Anyway, Moahim, edit it as appropriate, but I support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little conflicted. Yes, it looks like the sky was edited separately in a way that makes it a little off. Similarly, the light on the trunks of the trees seems illuminated in an odd way compared to the sky. Still, at full resolution the combination of scale and detail available here is really really nice. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

File:Painting in Chehel Sotoun.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2019 at 14:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 14:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 14:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Cmao20 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and brings diversity among the religious interiors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love classic Persian paintings of dancers and musicians. Very well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 17:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pala dei Disciplini incoronazione della Vergina Carmine Brescia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2019 at 13:03:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Painter in the circle of Paolo Caylina the Elder mid 15th century. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking fresco; sharp at lower but still high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will support once you make clear who the artist is - even if, as I suspect, it's an anonymous 15th-century painter or someone whose name has been forgotten. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the request --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roof of Ālī Qāpū.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2019 at 19:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 19:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 19:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Moahim (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame the windows on the left are so blown-out, but still FP level. Cmao20 (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Incredible beauty. --Gnosis (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support My god --Wilfredor (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minor correction to filename ... this is the ceiling, not the roof. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wilfredor Poc o² 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golden apple snail eggs.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2019 at 00:53:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Gastropoda
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and quite interesting.--Peulle (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. —kallerna (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, an excellent and simple composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 20:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the light is a bit harsh. I like the background repeating the pattern on the foreground. Gives a lot of depth to the image. - Benh (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moahim (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting. At first glance I thought this was some kind of berry. Cmao20 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably edible, but I would not make a cake of it :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, I almost thought this was some exotic variety of grapes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Gastropoda

File:Observation deck at Kyoto Tower with staff cleaning the windows, Japan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2019 at 00:55:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kestreltail (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great photography and a great lenz. --Gnosis (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moahim (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paisaje en Reserva Nacional Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 51-56 PAN.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 19:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Peru
Info Panorama view of Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve, Arequipa, Peru. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good QI with low wow factor. Imho drawbacks are: midday light, empty sky, horizon almost in the center of the frame, cropped gravel road on the right, interesting mountains too far away. --Ivar (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar, I'm afraid. Sorry. And on top, I'm never too keen on a same road showing as two parallel ones. That is very misleading. - Benh (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful, but a little bit samey. All the landscape is really quite similar, and I think you've done so many Peruvian or other South American panoramas that we can afford to be a little discriminating about the ones we choose to feature. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar, -- Karelj (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and btw, this shouldn't even be a QI. The horizon is curved, like what we find on non-carefully shot smartphone panoramas - Benh (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination and btw, Benh, I've improving the perspective. If you still believe that it's below the QI bar, remove the QI stamp. I'd then consider to work on it again and renominate it for QI again. Regarding your comment "The horizon is curved, like what we find on non-carefully shot smartphone panoramas". That's definitely below the belt. Please, keept those comments for you in the feature, there are definitely other ways to communicate here without being disrespectful to the author. Thank you. Poc o² 19:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not mine to remove the QI thing. And no I'll comment as I feel as long as my comment is factual. If you don't like correct comments, don't post your pictures here. Again what is disrespectful is posting a picture here with such glaring error, let alone uploading it to Commons. - Benh (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's like talking to a wall. Is not about the content but the package. You talk like only solid FPs should be allowed to upload on Commons. You'd have a lot of fun reviewing recent unploads. Poc o² 07:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have much more fun when a nom is carefully thought about before crashing here. Not necessarily because it's going to pass. But this I've told you a zillion times and... it's like talking to a wall. - Benh (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the charm of your judgements you will talk to a lot of walls :) Poc o² 15:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Вітряний млин з с. Недобоївці.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2019 at 05:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry
Info Probably won't make it, still giving it a shot...created by and uploaded by AlexanderVovck - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 05:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accidentally forgot to put this in the right place, so this nom should be extended. --Booth sift 23:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe you want to get rid of the CA, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It definitely has wow, but I hesitate because of the CA. It should probably be better considering this is a relatively easily-reproducable shot. Cmao20 (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd support if the CA is corrected, that is easy to fix and we shouldn't let FPCs pass with this kind of flaws Poc o² 17:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination For right now, I'll try to get Alexander to correct the CA. --Booth sift 04:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Griffen Untergreutschach Bildstock Jagakreuz SO-Ansicht 26052017 8785.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2019 at 12:08:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Seven Pandas -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This was at QIC and I loved the rich colors and composition of an old shrine with new spring time plants. The photographer's description says "Alcove wayside shrine “Jagakreuz”, set up in 1518, in Untergreutschach, municipality Griffen, district Völkermarkt, Carinthia, Austria, EU" Seven Pandas (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty and bucolic, but the light, and therefore the shadows, prevents the image from being special. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting 16th century object in pretty surroundings, sharp details, for me a FP. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting building but not a pleasant light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To specify: the shadows seem orientated towards us, which means the sun is more in front than behind. Shooting against the light, that's probably why the colors look a bit washed out. Perhaps the best composition from that point, unfortunately the orientation of the sun is not very cooperative -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve wondered why this looks a bit odd. Now I see why – it’s the reflection on the roof side, making it show almost the same colour as the cloud behind, as if it were made of glass. --Kreuz schnabel 17:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition and lighting, very sharp. Why should it not be a FP? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Feminist (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. Account created today. Please read the guidelines: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not enough for FP. Hard to see the painting in the shrine, in shadow. Composition has it facing out of the picture. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. And frankly, with the branch and the bright cloud in the background, it's really too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting building, very strong quality. Shame about the blown-out cloud, but overall good. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough --Booth sift 22:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me --Isiwal (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bern Parliament Plaza Flagged Wide 2019-09-13 23-11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2019 at 05:35:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info created by and uploaded by Axel Tschentscher - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Virtual-Pano (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 05:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~* regretful oppose~~ crisp and beautiful with an amazing sky! It's just that the image definitely needs perspective correction --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support ok now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. --Cart (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now after correction is done. --Cart (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very beautiful picture, both the building and the night sky, even without correction of the perspective -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question As I currently do not have access to any photo editing software, may I ask someone help with the perspective correction? @Axel Tschentscher: especially since you are the author and I trust that you would know how to fix it. --Booth sift 04:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin. Not every perspective has to be corrected, but this has to. -- -donald- (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending perspective correction. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Waiting for perspective correction too... --Moahim (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone please correct the perspective? I can't because I don't have any photo editing application right now(and I probably won't get one soon)? --Booth sift 07:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO the results would be better if the perspective correction was done right in the RAW converter, so either Axel would have to do it himself or provide the RAW file … --Aristeas (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until (successful) perspective correction. --Aristeas (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could have done it and actually wanted to do the perspective fix. But I can see author himself already did an aspect ratio alteration, which makes me wonder which are the correct proportions. So yes, it's really the author who should do the change. - Benh (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's OK without perspective correction to me, but would obviously be better with it done. Cmao20 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Did further perspective correction. Delay due to travel. Thanks for the comments. Axel ^(talk) 00:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should ping @Martin Falbisoner, W.carter, -donald-, Daniel Case, Moahim, and Aristeas: I believe. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Benh: Is there a non-obtrusive way to do so? --Axel ^(talk) 20:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Moahim (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that the voting period is over. Agree with Benh. --Moahim (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I did not get the ping in time. I would have change my vote to support, but now the voting period is over. Nevertheless, thank you for the additional effort with perspective correction, now the image is even greater. I am glad that it is featured! --Aristeas (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd have gone further to get all the verticals right, but that was already FP material to me. Gorgeous exposure. - Benh (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can we extend this nomination so that those notified can reply? --Booth sift 04:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary since it will get promoted with good margin anyway. --Cart (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boiga jaspidea, Jasper cat snake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2019 at 15:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created - uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking photo even if much of the snake is unsharp. I'm a little confused about the author. The description says "Photo by Thai National Parks" and Rushenb uploaded it as "own work". Which is it or does Rushenb represent Thai National Parks? --Cart (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thinks that they works(ed) for the "parks"; or that they got the permission to take photos in those protected restricted areas at the condition that they gives credits to the "parks". I don't know. But I have no doubts that Rushenb is the photographer and that the photos are "own works", the photo is also published at here and in full resolution in the flickr account of the uploader there. Note that the other uploads of that users (are all as good!) seems to have the same kind of text in the description. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am (Rushen Bilgin) the owner of Thai National Parks website. I publish my photos with Thai National Parks as the owner. The website is not an official website.Rushen ^(talk) 11:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per a lot of the snake being unsharp and the picture as a whole being kind of dark. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of wow, and the head being focussed makes it sufficient for me. Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Axel ^(talk) 09:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shattered light fixture 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2019 at 16:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
Info So, one evening I heard a very loud crash-bang from my bedroom. The hook that held the lamp had decided it didn't want to be attached to the ceiling anymore. Being a slightly odd photographer, I didn't go to get a broom but closed the door and slept on the sofa. The next morning, I went about photographing this impromptu "performance art installation" in the light from the window. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique photo for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very playful, nice light, good quality, unique. Your description made me laugh! --Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVery unique! A most interesting photograph. Kestreltail (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hook which created this work must be credited with the appropriate license tag. Also, do you have FoP in that part of the house? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hook has submitted an OTRS and thankfully there is FoP in the entire bedroom, not so sure about the living room though... --Cart (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportVery nice--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite interesting, something out of the ordinary.--Peulle (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Cart, for always coming up with ideas like that! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can take credit for breaking the lamp (I liked it as it was before), just documenting the aftermath. :) --Cart (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing crop imo. —kallerna (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity Kallerna, how would you crop this scene, (this is the whole scene), what would be an appealing crop of it for you? I'm always eager to learn new things or see them from another perspective. --Cart (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I prefer that photo as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d prefer a centered composition. Annotation to File:Shattered light fixture 8.jpg added, feel free to remove it. For a ⅓:⅔ composition, there’s too much stuff on the left and too little on the right. --Kreuz schnabel 17:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be File:Shattered light fixture 2.jpg. It's almost exactly the same as your annotation. Always good to have options, especially when the installation was taken to the recycling station the next day. :-) Myself I'm more leaning towards the versions with only glass on the mat, but I think those lack context for an FP. --Cart (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the glass pieces are cut due to the crop. IMO the scene isn't that special, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Feminist (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. Account created today. Please read the guidelines: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Peulle. --Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another subject no one would think of as an FP ... I can imagine this being used as a book cover, though I can't imagine what the subject of the book might be. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I think that could be one of those Swedish noir thrillers perhaps with the title "Shattered Dreams". Who knows... :-) I already got one of my photos on a book cover. Got a nice signed copy of it by mail from the author. --Cart (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Actually, that was the sort of thing I was thinking about but I thought it would have been too much of a cliché.

I've yet to have one of my images used on a book cover; magazines, though, are a different story. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, and not to forget the photos inside the NY book you wrote. I have read it, it's very nice. I keep it in the "Commons section" of my bookcase. --Cart (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice thinking and quite unique at FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how it's not another animal, flower, mountain, or interior. Nicely done --Booth sift 22:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrett av Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, 1909 - no-nb digifoto 20150129 00043 bldsa BB0791 - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2019 at 22:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Erwin Raupp - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a great portrait, but what did you restore? I really can't see much of a difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably most obvious right of his mouth. It's fixing specks and scratches more than big major damage. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose much room for further repair. The faded edges, most visible at top. Removal or at least a reduction of the moire pattern. Damage on the subjects forehead, not all dirt has been removed either, such as in the hair at the top left.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a moire pattern, that's paper texture. Check the original. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Axel ^(talk) 09:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Horloge mural couleur.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 11:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Horlogemural/#BeninTimes>
Info created by Adoscam - uploaded by Adoscam - nominated by Adoscam -- Adoscam (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adoscam (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: lack of image quality and subject not special enough

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.

--Uoaei1 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van S-charl naar Alp Sesvenna. 10-09-2019. (d.j.b) 25.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2019 at 14:59:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)
Info Mountain stream Aval S-charl, tributary of the Clemgia is looking for a way through the rubble of an erosion field.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - By coincidence, this is nominated under another photo with pretty backlighting. I really like the trees on the right in the context of this beautiful view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. There's a small black dot in the clouds, probably a bird, that I think is worth cloning out. -- Colin (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. spot removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting with all those zigzag lines and triangular shapes. --Cart (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 11:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, although the sky is a little bit noisy Poc o² 17:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare example of an image where this angle of light actually works, or at least doesn't hurt the image. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Moahim (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Nice --Booth sift 06:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)

File:Faloria Cortina d'Ampezzo 15.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2019 at 18:05:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Belluno
Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of course this is an impressing landscape but I don't think that this shot is one of the finest landscape shots. The light is rather harsh and there are disturbing dark areas in the foreground. I'm not very pleased by the composition either. The trees in the foreground on the left are disturbing, the whole row of trees in the front line block the image from the viewer, there is nothing what guides him into the scene. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We've seen a lot of similar landscapes from Moroder. However, I find this composition very peaceful and would be inclined to support. That said, I'd prefer if you'd smooth out the sky just a bit. I feel this kind of view is proper to see at full resolution, and there are some subtle blotches and striations in the sky. Some of the trees in the middle background could have been a bit sharper, but that's not something that would affect my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean with smoothing the sky? —kallerna (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating the blotches and striations, in favor of hue/shade shifts without lines in between the hues/shades. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to do that later today. —kallerna (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some retouches made. —kallerna (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still undecided, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the picture very well and do not feel the shadows as annoying, on the contrary. The trees in the foreground give the picture a desirable depth. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too contrasted. Harsh light, dull colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice alpine shot but for FP I'd like to see something more special - mostly light, actually. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Feminist (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. Account created today. Please read the guidelines: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose This is a pretty good picture, but the Moroder pics of this region have set a bar as high as Diliff's church interiors, and it doesn't get over that bar. It just seems too ordinary, and harshly lit. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry Kallerna but I'm inclined to agree with the above. Moroder's images are better when we're looking at alpine shots on Commons. This one is QI definitely, but I don't think the composition is that great. It's nice, but no more, considering the strong material available on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moroders pictures? Is there a summertime picture of Cristallo mountain by Moroder? I really don't get your point. Featured by Moroder, has a midday sun, and the quality is also mediocre. Not saying it was not a good shot, I just mean that not every fp should be taken during sunset nor by specific individual. —kallerna (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think that picture is anything like as good as Moroder's current work. I would probably give it a 'weak support' today, because I like the composition but the light is fairly weak and the quality isn't perfect (note that it was promoted in 2014). He has better pictures in this genre, such as this or this. Ultimately my issue with your image is composition, not quality. The image quality is pretty great, however the composition just doesn't appeal to me; I feel like I'd prefer to see a wider panorama. I think it's your misfortune that you're competing in a genre where there's lots of existing very strong work. But of course not every FP should be taken by a specific individual, I have regularly supported your work before (e.g. this). Cmao20 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's another place in another season. I get your point with wider panorama, thou IMO panoramas are never as good as individual frames. This one features wider point of view from the same mountain, and this is a real panorama from the same set. Anyways, thanks for the explanation. —kallerna (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the second image you link to is FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This doesn't look like it'll pass, but after looking at this photo many times, I ultimately like the composition and the alternation of light and dark areas works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So sorry but per others --Booth sift 06:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanessa cardui on Lavandula angustifolia-2459.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2019 at 15:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the backlighting of the butterfly's wings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Isiwal, is this heavily cropped or downsized? If the latter, can you upload full size please. -- Colin (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is cropped, can provide the RAW if necessary --Isiwal (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right. I take your word for it. -- Colin (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 19:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not huge in size but nice light and important DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great but it would be better if you clone out the flower in the middle at the bottom Poc o² 17:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb! Detailed, sharp, great DoF, bokeh, diagonal arrangement of flower and wings. --Axel ^(talk) 15:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 32 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2019 - Parc national des Pyrenees - Vallée de Gavarnie.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 07:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Moahim -- Moahim (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moahim (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good. Cmao20 (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You were blessed with a great sky, and the shadows and areas with trees of different colors really help, too. All the elements in this photo are in symbiosis. I agree with Cmao20: it's a really special photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sky is indeed nice, but I am not sure about the bottom crop and the sharpness Poc o² 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Strangely enough, the area in the middle is around blurred. But the picture is still good.--Ermell (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 14:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A small loch in the saddle between Beinn an Dothaidh and Beinn Dorain, Scotland 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 09:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_Kingdom#Scotland
Info created by Podzemnik - uploaded by Podzemnik - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, and I feel the cold, looking at this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Cmao20 for the nomination. That morning was magical but really windy and cold. Just for the record, soon after I took this nominated picture, I took this FP. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the atmosphere and ligthing, the sharpness is though not really good Poc o² 17:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice sunrise athmosphere and colours, but a bit disappointing on technical side. --A.Savin 21:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per A.Savin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Btw, a "small loch" is a "lochan". -- Colin (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usual special mood from author. - Benh (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and mood. --Moahim (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evokes some of your New Zealand winter photos ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ESTADOS UNIDOS LEVAM OURO NA GINÁSTICA FEMININA POR EQUIPES DOS JOGOS OLÍMPICOS RIO 2016 (28849586476).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 10:48:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created by Agência Brasil Fotografias - uploaded by Materialscientist - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice action shot, but the image as a whole sure seems dark. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Exciting. I think it's fine that the background is dark; we don't need to see details of the crowd. It's like a spotlight on an actor onstage. You wouldn't complain that the audience was in the dark, would you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine shot of a professional photographer --Isiwal (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But Rhododendrites is right. it is a bit on the dark side. Bringing up the light just a little bit will make it better without spoiling the background. Here is my version of that please use it if you like. --Cart (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it needs my vote to pass, but FWIW I'd support cart's version. The issue wasn't so much the background/shadows but the whites/highlights in the foreground. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it's dark and a tighter crop would make the picture more striking (note added) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hands and face --Axel ^(talk) 06:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Entrée principale de l’église protestante méthodiste du Bénin à Porto novo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 09:41:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors
Info created by Adoscam - uploaded by Adoscam - nominated by Adoscam -- Adoscam (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adoscam (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting place, but I'm not keen on that huge area of blown-out pavement in the foreground. Overall it's a nice sharp shot, but the blown-out area is pretty distracting, and I think it would be much better if it focussed entirely on the entranceway and if it was a symmetrical, face-on view of the doorway. As it is, the composition looks a little bit random. Cmao20 (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Totally agreed. Get a head-on view of the door with no blown areas in your picture, and then it might have a chance at FP. It is a nice motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per Ikan --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Little Venice in Colmar 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 11:32:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful composition, nice reflection in the water, but sky is too dull for me. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that! Gorgeos colors. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A beautiful image in pastel shades that go very well together. Cmao20 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. I just think this would be nicer with some sun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it's a shame about the sky, but the range of colors in the buildings compensates. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like others I do think the colors pop more due to the cloudy sky. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light. —kallerna (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light. -- Karelj (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Light could be better --Booth sift 06:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm probably biased, but I miss wow here. This is very common sight in Colmar. I'm not sure this is the best composition and light. - Benh (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New York state geographic map-en.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 12:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by ikonact - uploaded by ikonact - nominated by Ikonact -- Ikonact (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikonact (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great map, very close to excellent. Data sources are listed and finally somebody remembered to specify CRS/projection information! I have some minor points, though, regarding the labeling: 1) "CANADA" has the same font specifications as "Vermont", making it look like just another US state until you realize it's all caps. Maybe make it a bit larger? 2) Automatic label placement rarely leads to satisfying solutions. Especially the labels for "Long Island Sound", "Fishers Island", "Long Island" and "Staten Island" intersect with the state border in an ugly manner. "Oneida Lake" would look much better if it was rotated by a few degrees clock-wise. Most of the smaller city names are difficult to read, as they intersect with roads and other line features. Manual placement of the labels could help in many cases (alternatively, maybe consider using label halos). 3) General layout: The placement of the zoomed-out map between the two legends is a bit awkward. The frame of the elevational scale is thinner than the one of the other two boxes. The distance scale looks a bit lost so far away from the corner – generally distances of the legend boxes to the map borders and each other need adjustments. I'd probably cut away much more non-NY territory at the west, north and east – The state is so awkwardly shaped that you still should have plenty of space for your legend boxes. 4) Weird: Canada looks exactly like non-NY US states with mountains and the same kind of half-opaque masking, but it has no roads, rivers or settlements. Maybe just make it plain grey then? Lots of little things and none of them reason enough to oppose, but that's the kind of attention to detail that I'd like to see in a featured map. I guess I'll stay neutral for the moment, hoping that some of them may be addressed … --El Grafo (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: Thanks. I have updated the map taking onto accounts most of your comments. 1) Increased the font for "Canada" 2) Tried to improve the labeling 3) Moved the legends. I prefer not to cut the map as the map limits are fixed and if I cut by hand I will loose the precision 4) Added roads and cities. I deliberately avoided to put this data as it adds 3-4 MB of data but it is outside of the area of interest. Anyway, I agree that the map is nicer like this. --Ikonact (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very good map, but I'd like to be able to blow it up to at least twice the full resolution of 2,811 × 2,000 pixels and see a lot more details, topographically, in terms of names of bodies of water (rivers, lakes, etc.), and in terms of towns. Long Island is very strangely devoid of towns, when several more would have fit easily. (How about Huntington, Port Jefferson and some on the South Shore?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the comments. I would like to see also a higher resolution but Commons cannot handle the svg to pngs with higher than 2000-2500 pixels resolution. That's why I chose to use this resolution as optimal. I will try to add more details but I have to admit I find a bit difficult to understand the cities on Long Island. It looks like they are made of junction of several villages and this is not reflected in the geographical data I use for the map generation. I will try to work on this. --Ikonact (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean about cities in Long Island. There are counties, then towns, which are really sub-county divisions, and then the towns can be divided into villages and hamlets. That said, the village of Hempstead (as opposed to the much larger town of Hempstead) had a population of 53,891 in the 2010 Census and should definitely be included on the map. The hamlet of Huntington had a population of 18,406 in the 2010 Census. So basically, the terms "village" and "hamlet" have nothing much at all to do with population in Long Island. I think it's a real problem that higher resolution isn't possible. Is there anything that can be done about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support That looks like a nice map. I do agree with some point of El Grafo's thorough review, but I wonder if a fix wouldn't make it weirder. My complaint is that you should specify more widespread backup font for small labels (when I open the SVG in Chrome, the names are displayed using serif fonts, Times New Roman I believe). If you make it an SVG, I guess it's for people to use the SVG and not the PNG version rasterized on Wikimedia's servers, which has the proper fonts. I would also make "CANADA" bigger, to better emphasize the hierarchy. - Benh (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: Thanks. all comments are welcome. I will change the back-up font to sans-serif.--Ikonact (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better now, thanks! --El Grafo (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - I apologize for opposing this map on the basis that, apparently, this site doesn't permit higher resolution, but I think that for this to be justifiably an FP map, it needs a lot more detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there's issue with using mediawiki's builtin rasterization process (I tried to render the map at 4000px width with no success), but the fact there's no prerendered output larger than 2000px has nothing to do with the map itself. Native 2811px width also available btw. If you use a decent browser, it should also render the svg properly for you to enjoy the tons of details in this map. - Benh (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think the map is insufficiently detailed for FP. Very few names of lakes and rivers are given, for example. I expect those on any thorough relief map. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is just me, but if I want the names of every single item of a map and a zoom which reveals more actual details, I'd check Google Map (or OSM). That's what these are for. It would have been very cluttered at nominal size to label everything. This maps also focuses on NY state (as per its title). - Benh (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my standard. This is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is also my standard for photos, but I'm still supporting the photos here. And, I'm not sure any of these topo maps are useful at some resolution without some details trimming. Totally not comparable. - Benh (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Could you please provide the link to the NY state map that you like on the USGS site? I tried to find the NY state topographic map but with no success--Ikonact (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a free site. Results for a site search of "New York". Benh, I would be willing to accept less detail than in a USGS map. The issue is how much? You have a different answer than I to that question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking yourself the wrong question. Again this is no topo map. It serves different purpose. No one goes hiking with this, and no topographic map of the size of the whole state would illustrate an article about "NY State". - Benh (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question of how many details to include is always relevant in any map. As I said, the number of identified bodies of water is insufficient for me, and there should also be a few more towns. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I added the names of rivers and lakes. Hope you find now the map complete--Ikonact (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would like to support this, as I have lived so much of my life in different areas of this map, including currently. But ... why does Interstate 86 disappear from the map east of Binghamton? NY Route 17 is now designated as I-86 all the way to the I-84 junction near Middletown? I can understand if the cartographer wants to highlight only interstate highways but ... Route 17 has existed as a limited-access route through the Catskills and Delaware Valley for years ... surely the map should reflect this? Support now Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Thanks. I used GIS data from the National atlas and presented the Interstate highways indicated there. I can add route 17. --Ikonact (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Interstate 86 corrected--Ikonact (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Thanks for contributing this to Commons. I want to err on the side of supporting, because it seems quite competently done and I don't think I've seen a user-created map at FPC before. I'm learning a bit from this thread (e.g. that svgs have fonts built in and that mediawiki has a hard time with larger svgs). My only comment is to ask why Jersey City, Stamford, and Elizabeth are in the same dark font as NY cities, while the other cities of NJ and CT are grayed out? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, SVG has no font built-in. We specify the font we want to use in the SVG (which is only a text file). If the computer rendering it has the font then it will be used. Otherwise, it uses a backup font (if specified) and resorts back to a default font of the renderer's choice, and amongst the ones present on the computer. The PNG of the description page are rendered on Wikimedia Foundation's servers and the text are outputted using the fonts there. If you look at the SVG directly, the fonts are chosen amongst the ones on your own computer. That is why it is always good practice to specify backup fonts which are widespread (Times New Roman, Arial, Courrier...) - Benh (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I still think you can add a few towns (technically, villages or hamlets) on the South Shore of Long Island (such as perhaps Patchogue) and a place like Oneonta upstate, but I think this is a very good map for the whole state now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is the encyclopedic style of maps that have been really polishing off articles like en:New York (state), and have added there a level of professionalism and standardization that we were missing. The other state maps ikonact has made are also worthy of recognition here. My only comment/question with this specific file, is whether there is place or level of zoom to note the names to the two Canadian provinces, Quebec and Ontario. I ask just because the caption we use on New York (state) says "New York is bordered by five U.S. states, two Great Lakes, and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec." I'd be very happy to see this promoted.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice map. Having lived close to New York (Boston), I really miss the 6 hour drive to the Big Apple. --Booth sift 06:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Small detail: Between 2011 and 2015 Albany's population grew beyond 100.000. Therefore, it should have the same font as Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo. Also, Newark and Jersey City deserve the bigger font, too. -- Axel ^(talk) 06:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Axel Tschentscher: Thanks for the comment. I used the 2010 US census as reference. This is the most recent official census. I can use estimates from the US Census Bureau, but the estimates data shows that Albany has never reached 100 000. I agree on the remark for Newark and Jersey City font but this is a choice I made. A smaller font allows better readability as these cities are outside of the area of interest. Otherwise I think the map will be overloaded around New York. --Ikonact (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikonact: Got it. Took the Albany info from the German and French version of Wikivoyage at this page. -- Axel ^(talk) 15:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tour Corbieres Rodez.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 11:34:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprising perspective which makes the tower more interesting – the compressed arcade (right) gives a good contrast to the vertical lines of the tower and emphasizes it. --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breaks all the rules in terms of the narrow composition, but per Aristeas it works very well for this tower. Cmao20 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has grown on me. Gutsy. --Cart (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent vertorama (yes, there is apparently a word for this). Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tight crop ruins it for me. Another viewpoint would be better. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good light but the tight vertical framing produces a shrunk aspect. This angle also doesn't work in my view. The left part is cut as if there was no space available in that place -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop. -- Karelj (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waxing half moon over Brofjorden 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 08:56:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
Info I had read about the conjunction of the moon and Jupiter on September 5 and I was hoping to catch them over water for some nice reflections. Thankfully it was a mostly clear and calm night when I came down to the fjord. Sure enough, there was a very bright planet close to the moon so I think I got it right. Please correct me otherwise. I also like that the moon is this one major sizzling bright light it so often is for us living here in the countryside, and not that bleak 'face' with features you usually see in photos. Even so, you can make out the ragged line, created by the moon mountains, between the bright and dark side of the moon. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's certainly impressive to see the reflection of Jupiter as well as that of the moon. Cmao20 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do enjoy the compo but there is some cw tilt and it's quite noisy. I'd support if fixed. Poc o² 17:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to get back to you on that. Right now we have a power blackout for all of Lysekil Municipality. Only batteries and backup generators for powering the mobile phone network. I'm writing this sitting by a kerosene lamp. Rather cosy. No moon though since it's raining. :-) --Cart (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm back in the 21th century. The small tilt is fixed and a very, very, light NR is in place. I don't want to give it too much and lose the detail in the photo. With small sensor cameras it is so easy to overdo the NR, so I'm usually very restrained when it comes to that. I'll rather keep some noise than make it all plastic looking. --Cart (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry Cart, I have doubts that this is Jupiter. My feeling is that it should be closer than this to the moon (hard to tell, is 23mm from the EXIF the FF equiv?). It is quite possible that we're looking at Saturn here. And Jupiter could well be behind the clouds, closer to the moon, to its left, and slightly under. - Benh (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~added note to pinpoint supposedly location of Jupiter. - Benh (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

It's 64mm in FF equiv. So probably it is Jupiter (would have been to close to be Saturn anyways in 23mm). Sorry sorry. - Benh (talk)

I have 44 shots of this scene taken during a 30 minutes timeframe with the clouds moving rather rapidly over the sky (plus a bunch of other shots in other directions). During all that time, this was the only really bright planet in the sky. Had any other planet been hidden behind these clouds, it would have been visible in some of the other shots. This is a straight from camera (I haven't processed them all yet, hence the rather blue tone the camera's internal image processor loves to add) taken later when the cloud had moved a bit. It's from a slightly different position so a light is seen here that was obscured by a cliff in the first shots. I was playing around with framing, time, format, etc. Did you really think I would go on a shoot like this and take only one photo? :-) --Cart (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt you are careful enough. I just read a caption ("it is most likely Jupiter") leaving little room for doubt, so I help checking, that's all. I'm often too hasty, but I also often correct myself when I see I'm wrong, no worries ;) Sorry again for the trouble (if any). - Benh (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah Benh , that's ok no trouble. I wrote like that since I think it's prudent to invite others to check if something is outside your area of expertise, especially when we have access to so many talented people here. It was only your implication that I hadn't checked the rest of the sky and under the clouds for possible other planets during the session that bugged me a bit. If part of a photo is hard to see or obscured for some reason, it's always best to just ask if there are any other versions from the shoot that can clarify things. No hard feelings. :) --Cart (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Sky

File:Ālī Qāpū;s roof.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 09:21:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 09:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 09:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Cart (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Please fix the file's name after the nomination's over. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will. Hanooz 17:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)~[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible beauty. --Gnosis (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Moahim (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mariä Geburt, Höchberg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 10:05:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Looking towards the altar
Looking towards the organ

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info As I promised a while back, a nomination of some of DXR's excellent church interiors. Two images of the nave in opposite directions of Mariä Geburt, a Catholic ~~neo-Gothic~~ parish church and place of pilgrimage in Franconia. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support only a small part of the exterior is neo-Gothic, btw. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, I've struck it through. Guess you must know the area pretty well :) Cmao20 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the nomination. --DXR (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Moahim (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plaza del Comercio, Lisboa, Portugal, 2012-05-12, DD 01-03 PAN.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 18:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info Panoramic view of Praça do Comércio ("Commerce Square"), Lisbon, Portugal. The square was destroyed by the great 1755 Lisbon earthquake. After the earthquake, the square was completely remodeled as part of the rebuilding of the Pombaline Downtown, ordered by Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquis of Pombal, who was the Minister of the Kingdom of Portugal from 1750 to 1777. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 18:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know. The placement of the people feels random and not helpful to the composition, and I'm somewhat disappointed by the not very great sharpness and light. Useful for sure, but FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unsharp areas and partly leaning verticals, see note --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's certainly a useful pano, but the very grey and dull light, the distortions on the buildings and the lots of people make this some way from FP. Also the criticisms about variable sharpness and leaning verticals are true. You have so many potential candidates that are much better photos than this one. Cmao20 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I don't find people so disturbing. This square is very busy, showing it empty would look a bit awkward. But, yes, probably lacks sharpness. --Poc o² 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diana September 2019 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 20:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info Night view of the historic passenger ship Diana in Gothenburg habour. March 15, 1931, the Göta Canal Steamship Company’s new passenger and cargo ship, the M/S Diana was delivered from the Finnboda shipyard in Stockholm. The ship was designed to travel the Göta Canal between Gothenburg and Stockholm and is still in regular service between Gothenburg and Stockholm. The ship played an important role in the 1965 crime novel Roseanna by Swedish writers Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Really beautiful, but just a small question about licenses. To me it looks like this is the same photo you have posted on Flickr. If so, that photo has "copyright all rights reserved" and here it is published under {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. I don't think one photo (if it is the same photo and size) can be published under two licences. Can you and/or someone who knows stuff about licenses sort this out, please. --Cart (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the license on Flickr. However, I am convinced that as a creator I have the right to make the images available under a free license.--ArildV (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As author, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want with the license; you just can't do two different things to the same image. :) --Peulle (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right Peulle? I did release some of my photos under different licences before (typically when CC was inappropriate license for a publication/book and I was asked by authors for a different license.). I don't know so I'm genuinely interested. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, copyright laws may differ from country to country, so I'm not sure it applies everywhere, but the isue here is that an image that has been released with a free license can't have a restricted license somewhere else. When uploading to Commons, note that the release form says that you irrevocably release it under that license. Meaning you have given up the copyright (under certain conditions); the point is that you cannot then claim copyright over that same image anywhere else. :) --Peulle (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle, sorry but what you wrote is just totally wrong. See Commons:Multi-licensing. Your argument is a bit like saying that because you are selling a book for £9.99 at one shop, you can't sell it for £12.99 at another. The licence document is just a generous offer to the re-user. You can make different offers elsewhere, just like you can sell a book for different amounts in different places. You have never given up the copyright unless you use a CC0 declaration to do so. You haven't "given up copyright (under certain conditions)" with a CC licence and yes you can claim copyright elsewhere because your copyright still exists. The CC BY SA licence has in big shouty letters: "THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED." Indeed the "perpetual" aspect of the licence is actually constrained because when copyright no longer applies (XX years after you have died) the licence is void and no longer required. So the licence only exists while it is under copyright and can only be offered because the licensor owns the copyright. Any re-user is also required to publish your copyright notices, to remind everyone it is under copyright and merely licensed. Flickr doesn't offer many options for users to pick from. For example, they are still stuck at V2.0 of CC BY-SA. The folk on Commons who scrape photos off the internet, rather than uploading their own, face this issue all the time: one website claims "(c) all rights reserved" and another claims "(c) some rights reserved CC BY-SA 4.0".

The TLDR version is just chill. People are allowed to be inconsistent. -- Colin (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, you can publish under multiple licences, though technically "(c) all rights reserved" isn't a licence and is an inconsistent declaration when you have conditionally waived some rights elsewhere. Though some admins on Commons do need reminding that our images still do belong to us and are fully under copyright protection when licence conditions are not met. But I don't think there is anything legally wrong with it. You are simply telling one audience (Flickr) a different message to another (Commons). Diliff published all his cathedrals on Flickr with a -NC licence. Podzemnik you can offer as many licences as you like. Many older images on Commons are multiply licensed with GFDL and CC BY-SA. Any re-user has to pick one licence, though. (Just to be clear, the "(c)" bit isn't inconsistent and I put it on all my photos) -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Little bit noisy in the darks and there is a dustspot in the bottom right corner. --Moahim (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The comments about licensing did not make things any clearer to me, but I think the photo is great so I'll focus on that. Getting rid of the dust spot would be nice though. --Cart (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Dust spot removed, some noise reduction.--ArildV (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. I even like the (almost) empty space of the dark water: it emphasizes the lights and the ship. --Aristeas (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the night shot does justice to the boat. It's a lot of dark on more than 2/3 of the picture, and the main subject is a bit lost in there. - Benh (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is quite a lot of dark, but, well...the night is dark. Beautiful image overall, could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like this one, mainly night and black areas. Also small subject, not extraordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. —kallerna (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. -- Karelj (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others previously mentioned, too blackish. -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral due to the rights issue. Qualified support Sorry, ArildV, I hadn't realized you'd changed the license on Flickr as well until after I !voted ... that used to be a lot harder to do. My only comment now is that maybe you could crop some of the dark empty sky at the top off. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Not bad, but for FP I miss something. --A.Savin 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faloria Cortina d'Ampezzo 13.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 20:27:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Belluno
Info created and uploaded by kallerna| - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know, the trees, the trees. First off I think they help bring the monumentality in perspective. Second, and more importantly, the tree on the left closes the view that would otherwise be a boring roll off of the hillside, or worse, a cut into the rocks like in the panorama version. My only gripe is the clouds don't cast a shadow on one of the peaks. Can't have 'em all. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info This one might be the answer. —kallerna (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how when I put them next to each other I feel like the trees in the foreground add more to the picture than the shadow that I was missing. Also funny how all of us (assumed) are always hunting vantage points where nothing impedes the view but sometimes it works out better with a bit of distraction in the frame. In any case thank you for the link but I'm even happier with my pick for this FP nom than I was before. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the gap I marked really there?--Ermell (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Definitely a stiching error. I made a new merge, should be fixed now. —kallerna (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~As far as I can tell, this is a single frame not a stitched panorama, so the gap is presumably there in reality.~~ I actually like the panorama version better, but yes, this is FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Fair enough. Better resolution now, too. Cmao20 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm liking the composition, but in this one, too, I think you could smooth out the gradations in the sky somewhat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Smoothened the sky a bit, maybe better now? —kallerna (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So sorry for being indecisive. I will definitely look again in the coming days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support This time's the charm. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piccadilly Circus Dawn BLS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 17:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United_Kingdom
Info all by Benh (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That one is only 4 years old. It's 47mpix, sharp and detailed. Not the most artistic shot, but shows that iconic area very well IMO. And it's almost void of people here (usually insanely crowded)... -- Benh (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info same picture taken 8 years before, in the middle of the day. I don't think it shows how much more crowded this has gotten though. But Londoners can tell better. - Benh (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just about deserted at 7 AM? How did that happen? A Monday morning, yet! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two possibilities: hundreds of photos, or long exposure. But according to the traffic lights I guess the first one. -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many photos (more dozens than hundreds for sure), be a little patient when there are people. It is very easy to pick the empty version of overlapping area when you have carefully shot the raw source photos. But there's no secret: the hardest part is to get there early. - Benh (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The overcast makes for good encyclopedic photos but it's a bit boring. I also find it rather creepy to see this busy place so deserted. I know it does happen, I've walked through a totally deserted downtown London on a Christmas Day, but still slightly unnatural. --Cart (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid what you think is an "overcast" was due to my processing. I think it was sunny. You can see shadows, that I have mitigated. Overcast would have made it much easier to shoot. - Benh (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Relatively good image, but I do not see any reason for FP nomination here. -- Karelj (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj --Christof46 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support You know, I think the blah light actually helps here, because it accentuates how mundane this typically very busy place looks without its crowds (see also Times Square in a similar situation in Vanilla Sky. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cannon (11851198935).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 22:24:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Dino Quinzani - uploaded by FlickreviewR - nominated by Sting -- Sting (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nice light and composition, good IQ, good use of DoF; the impacts on that specific cannon are what makes the difference and brings drama to the picture. Sting (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice photo but IMO too small to be an FP in 2019. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite small, and the composition is off; roomy on the left and tight on the right.--Peulle (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Smallness and composition, plus the large dark shadow at left, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I beleive FPs must be the work of Commons users themselves, so this is not eligible anyway. Kestreltail (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, although, no, FPs don't have to be the work of Commons users. I think you're thinking of QI. Cmao20 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 04:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small and too tight crop. -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I understand the Mpx count isn't high enough for such suject. Sting (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Östen, die Wallfahrtskirche Maria Schnee Dm13585 IMG 0800 2019-07-31 10.52.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 19:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info the Wallfahrtskirche in Östen-Tyrol-Austria All by --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark clouds can be dramatic with the right light but the light is just not there in this image. Also not very sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be lightened and a little closer cropping to the church would help. OK on QI but enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I basically agree with the others, not necessarily that this photo should be brightened but that if it had been brightened by a sunshower or lightning, it would have been more interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dissent. I like the dark mood, and the quality seems fine. However, I think the composition would be improved if a bit of the foreground were cropped out. Cmao20 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bland composition and underexposed. - Benh (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made it a bit brighter and I did a bottom and left crop --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now it’s getting noisy, sorry. I see your idea, and it’s a nice one, but it got just too dark overall. I think this would work perfectly in HDR. --Kreuz schnabel 08:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I’d prefer a slightly higher viewing angle, too, to gain a bit on the top at the expense of unimportant foreground. Nice scene and image but not one of the very best we’ve got on Commons. --Kreuz schnabel 08:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all reviews --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estonian Museum of Natural History - Brown algae.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2019 at 08:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by Jaagup Metsalu (3D model/render) - uploaded by Estonian Museum of Natural History - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lacks proper categorization and informative description (species?). --El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. This is Commons, categorization is important.--Peulle (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Languedoc (frégate), Sète.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2019 at 09:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Moahim (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful work . Cmao20 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gyrostat (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aquamarine water pool at Bumpass Hell-8882.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2019 at 03:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
Info Last weekend, I went to Lassen Volcanic National Park, four hours north of San Francisco. I took this shot at a place called "Bumpass Hell", named after the early settler Kendall Bumpass who broke through the thin crust and burned his leg, which consequently had to be amputated. As I'm eager to get more people to share their images on Wikimedia Commons, I also shot a YouTube video (English subtitles available) explaining how I find subjects for my photography subjects. It's kind of a making-off as well as a way to show what I'm most passionate about – Taking photos for Wikipedia. c/u/n by --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Do you have any more room to the right that you could show us? I'd love to see more of that rock. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan, I've increased the room on the left and on the right. It's not a rock btw, it's sand. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent photo, but right crop is unfortunately not perfect --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 21:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The colors are very interesting, but I wish there was more space to breathe on the sides of the pool. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Like King says, quite an interesting photo. I think that sometimes, a clear photo of something of scientific interest is enough reason for a photo to be an FP. Did it smell sulphurous there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan: Yes, it smelled very sulphurous. Please let me know if you're ever planning on coming to California. This place is awesome and I'd be more than happy to show you or anyone else here around. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you. I do go to California fairly frequently, usually once a year, but I haven't been to that part of the state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've always wondered where they make the Ice Blue Kool Aid... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rhododendrites :-) Thanks! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: That's why it's a national park . Ice Blue Kool Aid is extremely important for the economy--Booth sift 05:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National parks! OH YEAH! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bubo scandiacus - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2019 at 06:48:36 (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) 06:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but it doesn't quite work for me since it's not centered; the bird is photographed slightly from an angle.--Peulle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cart (below) convinced me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely and interesting lively image of owl eyes. I don't understand the everything-must-be-front-and-center thing this forum has. This view from a slight angle gives us a more pensive "hmm, who are you and what are you doing" look from the owl as opposed to the startled "deer in headlights" centered front view. From an encyclopedic point of view, it also gives a better "3D" look at the feathers (not sure owls have eyelashes) around the eye area. When looking at a human, this or this is often preferred over this, for me it's the same with animals. --Cart (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support +1 to that. --El Grafo (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I suppose the feathers could be sharper, but it's a very striking picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Peulle. And while I also agree with Cart, her examples don't convince me at all. For a start, this is a close up, focused on the eye, and it just annoys me that one eye is smaller than the other here. When I look at a living thing in the eye this intensely, I'd rather do it in front of it. - Benh (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mesmerizing --Dinkum (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose I just find owl eyes to always be mesmerizing, so would need something more special to support just a close-up of the eyes. For me the level of detail and light isn't working sufficient to justify supporting the tight framing. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart --GRDN711 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition --Wilfredor (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reminds me a bit to this FP but I am not convinced by the sharpness/DoF and POV, either Poc o² 17:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Interesting shot. The focus is imho just a negligible issue; it's difficult to expect deeper DoF for a closeup shot with such an active bird. As long as the eyes are sharp, it's fine for me. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 09:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Looks like the graphics used with some fantasy franchise ... I suppose given the subject I'm probably thinking Harry Potter, but I seem to be being tugged by Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire (in which case it would be wolf's eyes). Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 06:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered view would be better. -- Pofka (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oljaytu mihrab.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2019 at 09:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 09:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 09:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Might be a bit sharper, but surely has wow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gymnadenia densiflora - Keila3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2019 at 14:38:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by Ivar (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes a nice abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. Very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 22:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales

File:Jules Verne by Étienne Carjat.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2019 at 20:35:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Étienne Carjat - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Very good portrait, but should what looks like a diagonal scratch on his right sleeve near the lower left corner of the picture not be eliminated? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: I read that as light reflecting off a sharp fold of cloth. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I see. Maybe it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chirostylus Spider Crab (Chirostylus sp.) (16244533922).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2019 at 14:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Order : Decapoda (Crabs, Shrimps and Relatives)
Info created by Rickard Zerpe - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting shape, but the upper leg is cut, and the picture rather dark. The motifs of the background make it hard to distinguish the animal -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut off leg. Charles (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basile --Booth sift 05:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting photo, but it is a shame about the cut-off leg. Cmao20 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old stock exchange in Leipzig (4).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2019 at 20:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really excited by this. It's just a fine QI.--Peulle (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting street lamp -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile --Booth sift 05:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Pretty good picture of a fine building, but not a great overall composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexei Leonov.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2019 at 12:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Astronauts
Info created by NASA; retouched, uploaded, and nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good historically important photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant historical figure, very sharp. I'm speculating (but don't know) that the reason for the American and Soviet flags together on the table is the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, which took place in 1975 a few months after this picture, but was in the works then. Perhaps this can be added to the description if it can be confirmed. Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmao20, that is certainly the case. Leonov is actually wearing a pin with the emblem for the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project, File:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project patch.svg. I have added to the description. — Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's give this a speedy promotion --Booth sift 07:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 16:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ivanovo asv2018-08 img05 Railway station.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 12:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train stations
Info Ceiling detail of Ivanovo Railway Station (Constructivist architecture) ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this a lot --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much approved. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite fascinating. Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Slightly grainy, but a great composition and it would seem to be extremely useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 18:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support usually bored of ceilings but that one stands out in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Aristeas (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. per benh — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 16:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Transport#Train stations

File:Peau de serpent apreès mue deposeé sur une feuille au dans champ au Bénin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 07:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Adoscam - uploaded by Adoscam - nominated by Adoscam -- Adoscam (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adoscam (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but the left crop ruins it for me. --Dinkum (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dinkum, plus focus problem: the underlying leaf is sharper than the skin itself. --Kreuz schnabel 16:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others but per Dinkum, there are interesting elements. Keep working on your technique. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment … right, and consider to get some better equipment, such as a small µFT or APS-C camera, which will give you both better image resolution and better control on things like focus. You can’t expect to get an FP out of a phonecam (though it’s possible but needs loads of wow). --Kreuz schnabel 10:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but if you submit a photo like this that isn't cut off this way and is sharper, it sure could be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Left crop. -- Pofka (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, dull color and random composition. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 16:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rouge park trail panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2019 at 01:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada
Info: golden hour on a recently opened trail in the Rouge National Urban Park. The area consists of active agricultural land (soybean cultivation) and a restored meadow ecosystem. I think the colours make it a worthy candidate. All by me. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The stitching error at the upper edge of the field in the middle should be fixed.--Ermell (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks, will get to it later today. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Ermell --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very well composed. Cmao20 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good, sensitive picture, but I find that the dark areas to the right of the path hog too much attention, and the overall composition doesn't quite work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, sorry. --A.Savin 21:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also think, if you made the picture at the begin of the asphalt trail without the wooden path, it would be better. -- -donald- (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the right third of the image doesn't really contribute to the composition, and would be better cropped off. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice now, love the clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done: cropped the less interesting part on the right Ikan Kekek, A.Savin, King of Hearts. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Definitely better, but still not quite working for me so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like the light, and the fact the trail and line of clouds meet on the far left. Just, how sad it is so close to the border. I think I also agree the wooden part might be too much. It's hard to tell for sure, but the panorama might be slightly bended (upward curvature horizon) - Benh (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last point, the area is on a glacial moraine, resulting in undulating topography, so you wouldn't get a perfectly straight horizon there. It was more obvious before I cropped a big chunk on the right. The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Ikan and King of Hearts --Booth sift 06:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending revision: Why not crop to 2/3 sky vs 1/3 land to get rid of the dark right side (cf. note); the sky is best anyhow -- Axel ^(talk) 06:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. -- Pofka (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Cosmonaut about the colors. It's an overall quite pleasing image. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Impatiens glandulifera.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 05:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Ericales
Info: Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) blooming at the rare Charitable Research Reserve, Ontario, Canada-- The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like the previous one, I think this is too dark. For me, this is a better light for these flowers. --Cart (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cart. I see in the EXIF that the flash fired, which explains the quite harsh light. Still good, but the bar for flower FPs is quite high. Cmao20 (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that's clearly underexposed --El Grafo (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC) (Might be fixable in post. If so, please ping me when a new version is uploaded)[reply]
Done: redeveloped from RAW and brightened Cart, Cmao20, El Grafo. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment much better now, but still not quite FP level (per Cmao20). --El Grafo (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support No longer underexposed. --Axel ^(talk) 15:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of the light, those two buds or whatever at left are too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the seed pods were included intentionally to avoid the same boring dead-centered composition. They are a part of the plant, so to call them a great distraction is a bit baffling. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support for this view: less boring, non-centered, and also good to have another sharp detail of the plant. --Axel ^(talk) 06:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nyckelviken July 2019 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 22:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Sweden
Info created by and uploaded by ArildV - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 22:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 22:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cheery, peaceful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice lines. --Cart (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely, I love the colours here. Cmao20 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 12:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice perpective, composition and colours. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 18:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Axel ^(talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for nomination and votes. Regards--ArildV (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chenille chevrefeuille.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2019 at 05:57:23

Info Quality isn't on par with today's standards. The two quality images in the same category have a better quality than this image. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Booth sift 05:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new ones mentioned are flat on the ground. This is still more interesting. Quality is quite impressive for 2006. Delisting should be a measure of last resort. --Axel ^(talk) 07:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Axel --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hockei (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cmao20 (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews, I was debating on this nomination myself--Booth sift 07:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kefermarkt Schloss Weinberg Schwandtendorf-4910.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2019 at 07:53:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info Castle Weinberg in Kefermarkt with surrounding area, created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this, but it seems tilted to me (the horizon seems to slope to the right); is that worth checking? I also think it could be a tiny bit oversharpened. But it's a nice composition, and flaws should be fixable. Cmao20 (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The terrain is sloping, this is the natural prospect of this landscape, please take a look on the verticals of the castle. Sharpness mainly comes from wide-angle-lens, taken on tripod, but I reduced as proposed.

Honestly, the sharpness looks way less over the top now. Explanation understood, Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Really excellent composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is definitely FP potential. The subject and the landscape in the background are really nice, but the piece of road and the wires in the foreground don't help, probably it wasn't the best POV. Poc o² 17:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't come together for me as a whole. There is nothing connecting the foreground with the road in the background, with the castle in the middle acting as a barrier unfortunately. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It misses something in my opinion. I do agree with the King, and I'd add that this landscape seems just about perfect for a horizontal light. - Benh (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dead trees and wires are even more visible than the castle which is probably the main subject here. Plus the cropped random road in the right corner makes the composition even worse. -- Pofka (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a comprehensive criticism of the composition, so of course I don't take issue with that, but I don't think the castle is the "main subject", just the most prominent building in a larger landscape. If Isiwal had wanted to focus on just the castle as the subject, the photo would be much more narrowly defined on the castle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iris Calderhead.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2019 at 15:16:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info Unknown photographer; restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, very striking, per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light-within-darkness effect of the eyes. --Axel ^(talk) 06:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gonocerus insidiator - 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2019 at 14:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Coreidae (Leaf-footed Bugs)
Info created & uploaded by Kadellar - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting side view but cluttered composition, and not so sharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Borderline QI on sharpness. Charles (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Good pic, but sharpness should be better for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:La batalla de Valenciennes.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 05:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990-now
Info Contemporary artistic drawing of the Spanish Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau about the battle of Valenciennes (1656), nominated by LLs -- LLs -.- 05:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LLs -.- 05:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is smaller than the minimum required size of 2 megapixels.

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.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Cart (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.17.-10-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Knollen-Platterbse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2019 at 07:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fabaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know, just doesn't move me like other flower photos do. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. Probably because it is quite dark and has poor lighting. -- Pofka (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Nice flower, but something's not quite right. Lighting, background, maybe the squarish aspect? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special --Booth sift 22:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 17:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.07.17.-21-Tiefer See oder Grubensee-Storkow (Mark)--Ringelnatter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2019 at 09:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Colubridae (Colubrids)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good focus, great quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Charles (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and Charles. --Aristeas (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 20:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dome of Panthéon de Paris - 2012-05-28.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2019 at 05:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created & uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-framed, dramatic background. Cmao20 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 12:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the pediment cut off on three sides is rather unfortunate. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The asymmetry is bothering me. Either it should be perfectly symmetrical, or it should be clearly and artistically positioned off-center. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fully agree with you King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, it's a shame I did not had time to frame it better. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per King, nothing special. -- Karelj (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut-off pediment per Cosmo, plus I am not fond of the dark-grey background, making the left part almost invisible. --Kreuz schnabel 11:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is okay, but not too special.--Peulle (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that special--Booth sift 16:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rue de l'Abreuvoir, Paris 30 September 2019.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 06:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created by Pierre Blaché - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view but over-processed (over-sharpened+too much gamma?) leading to strong black lines in the images and white halos around all structures. Time in "date" and Exif do not match, it doesn't look like a midnight shot. --Cart (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, overprocessed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Lavin door Val Lavinuoz naar Alp dÍmmez (2025m.) 11-09-2019. (d.j.b) 18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2019 at 15:11:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info A beautifully drawn gneis. The brown color was probably already on the stone before it fell. It is rust, iron, therefore, that probably formed in a crack in the rock when air and / or water could be added. The apparent layering is a characteristic of gneiss. Due to the pressure, the minerals have fallen into parallel paths.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for the early oppose – its nice but I am not at all sure about the composition. Is it meant to show a) the stone’s surface as such? Then, there’s too much surrounding, too little detail on the stone and too much noise. Why not fill the entire frame with it? Or is it b) the stone within its surrounding? Then, there’s too little surrounding, no depth. In either case, this is not the best possible image that could have been taken IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Framing doesn't match description. If the subject is the layers, then the framing should be tighter, or even show just the layers IMO. - Benh (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hate to say this, but it's too ordinary: there are many more impressive rocks along the trails here in Switzerland -- Axel ^(talk) 06:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment. This photo is specifically about a gneiss.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Famberhorst: Not sure if I'm wrong (if so: forgive my geological ignorance), but I always took gneiss for one of the most common rock variants of the Alps. -- Axel ^(talk) 15:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: @Axel Tschentscher: we went into the mountains of Switzerland with an archaeologist for a week. He knows the area like the back of his hand. All the photos that I have taken that contain something special, I first send to that archaeologist. He then makes the description with that photo. I then place that description under the photo. I think the description is correct! I therefore assume that the text is correct.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too ordinary. -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Oppose As I said above, this is too poor in detail for an FP on the stone surface. Too small as well (only 4 megapixels now). Nevertheless it’s VI for sure. --Kreuz schnabel 07:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The leucosome content is rather high; not the best example of common gneissic rock. —kallerna (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this looks even worse and more ordinary to me. -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Chehel Sotoun ceiling.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2019 at 14:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 14:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 14:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Hanooz: Only two active nominations by the same user are allowed. --Ivar (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Hanooz: Please don't just remove nominations from the list. They need to be archived to the Log by FPC Bot or a maintenance user. Just leave the nom be in the list and it will be taken care of. I have fixed this for you now, just remember it in the future. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Sorry. I didn't know that. Hanooz 15:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanooz: Don't worry, most of us learned things this way, through our mistakes.

There is so much to learn at FPC and overall you are doing well. You are a great addition to the gang here, nominating good photos and not being offended when you are corrected about some minor technicality. Thanks for contributing! --Cart (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness. I'm learning from you and others here. Hanooz 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

File:Trees around Brastad soccer arena in fog (14).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2019 at 07:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Sweden
Info Al by me, -- Cart (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea, but not sure about the composition here either. Looks very random. And questionable colours rendition (yes I read the caption about the colour temp). - Benh (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: Easy to say it looks random even when the compo was chosen very carefully to get interesting trees while at the same time avoiding the glare of one lamp by the street to the right and get the floodlights around the field partially covered by trees so they wouldn't get too glary. As for the color, there are always questions about how to render sodium lights since cameras often have some difficulty picking up the exact right color. I've been there before and remembering those comments, I made a quick rendition of the light as soon as I got home and still had the scene fresh in my mind and I could set the color by using the normal (orange-y) sodium light shining on the road in front of the arena. When I got to the arena the sky was still blue, the floodlights had not warmed up yet and the fog was very thick (1). As time went by the fog thinned out a bit, the sky turned black and the floodlights became hotter and more yellow than orange. When I took this photo, the ambient light over the arena had turned almost green since the light from the floodlights was reflected from the plastic AstroTurf of the field up into the fog, giving the scene this strange yellow-green light. Normal grass isn't this reflective. You can follow how the light changed in the 1-18 photos in the series. --Cart (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, trying to squeeze everything in just isn't the right thing to do. Thanks for the explanations on the colours. I like the orange on blue version better (and aside, they are complimentary colours). That wasn't the main reason why I opposed. - Benh (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: I can totally respect if you don't like the compo, that is fine, it was the comment about the color that made me defensive since I went to great lengths to get it right. The raw was even more totally green since the camera read the sodium lights as 'white'. Yes, blue and orange are nice together, I guess you weren't around for the blue/orange doping thing. :) --Cart (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination On second thought, it probably was a mistake nominating this. Thanks anyway. --Cart (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klonglan waterfall 03.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 01:07:46

Info Misleadingly fake colours. Even with the retouched image template, inattentive viewers will be misled to think that the trees look like this. See user's other upload File:Klonglan waterfall 01.jpg for what the place actually looks like. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Paul_012 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Should this be a delist and replace? I think the other photo is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist And I wouldn't touch their other photos with a barge pole. If they are this dishonest with the photo, who knows what other dishonesty is involved with the others (e.g., not their photos). -- Colin (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Replace doesn't work here, the other one is totally different. --Ivar (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question This was awarded the star only 3 years ago. Should a delist discussion take place so soon?--Peulle (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: I think it's clear from the original nomination that at the time nobody noticed the fake. Afair, we don't really have any rules for when a delist can take place, but I think in cases like this it would be ridiculous to wait a single day. --El Grafo (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fake and misleading. Given that Khlong Lan National Park lies well in the tropical zone I'd like to question whether this kind of autumn colors would even be possible there. I think I'm going to slap a {{Factual accuracy}} on this and #7. Anyway, as soon as you zoom in a bit, the fake is quite obvious. --El Grafo (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , preferrably speedy. --A.Savin 11:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klonglan waterfall 03.jpg -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist absolutely per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Clearly very much altered. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I'm a bit embarrassed that I suspended belief, figuring during the original nomination that maybe it was high up in the mountains in northern Thailand and there was a fall season there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unnatural -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Clear case of a too much altered image. --Cart (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist; my support !vote in the original nomination is now deeply embarrassing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist .--Vulp here 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Pofka (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per others--Booth sift 05:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 15 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Cart (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stormy sunset over Waimakariri River basin, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2019 at 01:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It was quite cloudy that day. Before the sunset it got really dark as heavy blackish clouds were bringing a lot of rain and snow. This is a moment when the sun managed to peak through for a while. Taken from the northern slopes of Black Range, New Zealand. -- Podzemnik (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice--Booth sift 05:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful scenery and a great moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! Biblical. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 11:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dzaky17 (talk/bicara) 11:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support epic :) - Benh (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tad Hang waterfalls at sunset, Tad Lo village, Bolaven Plateau, Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 00:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Moahim (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though I don't usually like blurry water, this is too good to critique too much. Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the frozen water, sorry to be the buzzkill --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there is any more at the bottom, I would re-crop to include it. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GRDN711. Agree but there is a rock in the foreground below and this framing is really the last limit I could reach with my tripod -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Beautiful photo. But the waterfall is too unnatural for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 3 seconds photograph. The water is frozen yes, due to the long exposure. I like it like this personally, but even if I had preferred it fluid like moving, at this late sunset that would not have been possible at low ISO (here 50) -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

actually I do agree, somehow, with the criticisms. 3 sec is maybe a tad too long. Half a second gives a vert nice motion already without "smearing" everything. It's a matter of tastes, but I'm not getting your iso50 comment? you could have made it shorter by bumping ISO up. - Benh (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yasaka-dori early morning with street lanterns and the Tower of Yasaka (Hokan-ji Temple), Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 00:35:57 (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) 00:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too cramped for me, the tower being obscured.--Peulle (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works because of the earth-toned buildings. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really enjoy the rhythm and all the different textures and surfaces, and the lamps help a lot, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an iconic view of Kyoto and this temple is one of the most important of the city. It was 5 o'clock in the morning. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common image, no reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Karelj--Booth sift 22:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2019 - Pshav-Khevsureti National Park - Khidotani ridge and Tebulosmta.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 06:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Georgia
Info created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Moahim -- Moahim (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moahim (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the composition looks a bit unbalanced to me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose unfortunately per Uoaei1. It's a nice landscape, but there's a bit too much foreground for me, and that makes it good not great. Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cmao20 --GRDN711 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good to me. I really enjoy moving my eyes around the picture frame and love the variations of light, sharpness, texture and color. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but the shadowed hills is a bit too protuberant. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first, I also thought the foreground was too dominant. Then I realised what a perfect contrast the (perfectly sharp) flowers make to the green slopes in the background. Then I noticed the purple ones … then the sunlight playing with the flowers on the right … this is masterful handling of the given lighting. --Kreuz schnabel 19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besides the above, the foreground and background make for a VERY encyclopedic image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The lower corners are unsharp and distorted --Llez (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither the subject itself nor the lighting are at FP level to me. The mountain in shadow on the right and the excesive foreground are not helping either Poc o² 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco -- Karelj (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco--Booth sift 22:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco --Fischer.H (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main altar of St. Georg, Mundelfingen, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 05:09:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Chancel with main altar
The Crucifixion, the central altarpiece
Saint George, the upper altarpiece
Saint Peter, statue at the left side of the main altar
Mary Magdalene, statue at the right side of the main altar

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ceiling painting of the ascension would also be a good addition to the gallery --GRDN711 (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:St. Georg - Mundelfingen - Chancel.jpg doesn't seem quite an FP to me, as I find it a little unsharp and a little grainy. The rest are FPs. Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm not so sure how much I like the light in that photo, either, but I don't think you can do anything about that. If you could get more definition and keep it looking natural, perhaps I could support. At this point, I'd be inclined to oppose the set, as I should support every photo in it for FP in order to support the set nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I definitely see Ikan's point, I thought the same when I looked at it first-off. It seems to me that the focus might have been slightly missed on the chancel and that the sharpness has been increased to compensate. It looks better when downsized to around 6.5 mpx, but it's definitely the weakest of the set. I wasn't sure whether I'd support after only having looked at that one, but decided after viewing the others that overall the set together makes it to FP. Cmao20 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me, FPs of artwork require an outstanding artistic quality. For me, neither the paintings nor the statues reach this quality. Thus, I would support the first image only. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for the reasons stated above --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Uoaei1, I wouldn't support all these pictures separetaly, although in this case the set rule is given Poc o² 20:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photos provide an excellent documentation of the church but I don't find them interesting from photographical point of view. I'd like to see something more special for FP star on Commons. Sorry Lez! --Podzemnik (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1--Booth sift 22:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1 -- Karelj (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de María Reina del Mundo, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-11, DD 37-39 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 18:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Canada
Info Ceiling of the Cathedral-Basilica of Mary, Queen of the World, Montreal, Canada. The construction of the cathedral, ordered by Ignace Bourget, began in 1875 in order to replace the former Saint-Jacques Cathedral which had burned in 1852. The building is a scale model of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome and the new church was consecrated in 1894. In 2000 the cathedral was designated a National Historic Site of Canada. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 18:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong candidate, very high resolution and wow-y ceiling. Cmao20 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glad someone took the time to get inside this beautiful building many of us at that Wikimania were shooting the outside of. Gladder still it was you. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common image, no reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral @Karelj Honestly, it seems to me that any high quality church interior automatically gets FP around here. Maybe I'm not cultured enough to appreciate religious architecture. :) Percival Kestreltail (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree a lot. It's more that there's a bias toward sharp pictures. Church interiors and, to a higher extent, ceilings are easy topics to shoot sharp, so we have heaps of them, and they are often promoted. - Benh (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but some of us actually like interesting church architecture too Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Karelj.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Needs perspective correction. - Benh (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de Salzburgo, Salzburgo, Austria, 2019-05-19, DD 33-35 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2019 at 20:30:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Central dome of Salzburg Cathedral, Austria. The cathedral was founded in 774 and rebuilt in 1181 after a fire but it become its present Baroque style appearance under Prince-Bishop Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau in the 17th century. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 20:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak support~~ Support I'm not shy to say it: I'm happy we don't have those crappy ceilings from Livio anymore. My suggestion on that one: a square centered crop and CCW rotation so that the light shaft comes from the top? And also maybe pushing the exposure up. - Benh (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see you submitting new material again. Excellent quality and good corner sharpness. At first I agreed with Benh that the exposure might be a little too low, but looking at it in full-res, I think it's more or less right. Cmao20 (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Benh, The Cosmonaut, and Cmao20: Ok, I've applied a crop and brightened it a little bit. I prefer this orientation to keep the pigeon in the center the way it's and to avoid an asymmetry between left and right as the top arch in the current version is darker Poc o² 08:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the crop was necessary tbh, but it doesn't affect my support. However, would it be possible to keep the original as a separate file, as in some ways I prefer it? Cmao20 (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20, one of the (additional) reasons why I followed Benh's advice was because I had already uploaded another file with more crop and landscape format. This one I will definitely not crop, maybe this in is what you are looking for: File:Catedral de Salzburgo, Salzburgo, Austria, 2019-05-19, DD 30-32 HDR.jpg --Poc o² 11:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, that's a nice one too. Cmao20 (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hanooz 10:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the edits, which IMO improve the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a dove btw, not a pigeon. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Martin Falbisoner: It makes no difference as pigeons and doves are basically the same bird, hence Columbidae--Booth sift 01:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, as far as biological taxonomy is concerned. From a linguistic - and especially an iconographic - point of view, there are some differences. Not that it would matter much for this nom :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crepuscular rays are subtle but a very nice touch ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Mont y l bosch de Resciesa d'inviërn Gherdëina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 19:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wowed by the lighting or colors. In terms of composition, zigzags are a nice idea in general but here it doesn't really lead anywhere and there is no foreground interest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somewhat along the lines of KoH. Too much of the composition feels rather static to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Sorry, it's very scenic and great quality as ever with you, but I don't see too much in the way of composition. Probably one of these sights that's really beautiful in real life but is hard to translate to a good snap. Cmao20 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose washed out colors, and unsharp. - Benh (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 04:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; probably time to withdraw the nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. You don't have to withdraw though, maybe someone will support this in one day--Booth sift 05:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, someone has finally supported this. This impressed me very much, probably won't make FP but I wanted to give it at least one support. Kestreltail (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kestreltail: My prediction was correct! --Booth sift 07:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support best one of the current candidates --Milseburg (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Karelj (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casa de Julio Cesar Tello en Marcahuasi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2019 at 00:47:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Peru
Info Stone house of the anthropologist Julio César Tello in Marcahuasi, Peru. Marcahuasi is a plateau of the Andes mountain range located east of Lima, has a lot of influence on the development of Peruvian culture. Julio César Tello spent time in his life as a hermit on the plateau to study his surroundings by me, LLs -.- 00:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LLs -.- 00:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. Quite a lot of purple CA around the image. Is it possible for you to fix that, and then I think I could support? Cmao20 (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao, except I'm seeing a lot of cyan/magenta CA. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 10:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lophocampa caryae caterpillar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2019 at 02:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)
Info: Hickory tussock moth (Lophocampa caryae) caterpillar. All by me -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I'd brighten it a bit Poc o² 12:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 16:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Fischer.H (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)

File:Ragondin (Myocastor coypus) (animal) (3).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2019 at 02:49:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by and uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 02:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 02:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - Cute photo of this invasive species, though the one preexisting nutria FP is probably a more interesting composition, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wish I could be floating in the water, looking that peaceful right about now. — ⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟ ^{My recent}
_mischief 09:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is different enough from the other FP Ikan links to. Cmao20 (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question This animal appears to be eating food provided by humans that is not its normal diet. Is that what I'm seeing? Charles (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: That looks a lot like en:Cantaloupe in the other picture and the category contains videos of it being fed with bread. --El Grafo (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was it. But it was not me, I only give bread to attract them. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~Thanks for the explanation. Feeding wild animals inappropriate food for photography is not something we should encourage. Charles (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - For an FPC nomination of a great portrait you took of a squirrel in your yard, I thought you mentioned you fed him so that you could get a better portrait. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong. --Cart (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did. With food appropriate for the species. Charles (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a number of sources listing melons as something nutria eat, to the point of being considered a pest to melon farmers. But if we're just going to say that it wouldn't eat melons if humans weren't nearby, that's starting down a path into very gray area. Many species now only exist in relation to humans. Others have their diet modified by what humans make available. For example, squirrels probably wouldn't encounter little piles of seeds, probably of various types that may or may not grow where it lives (I am of course making an assumption that it was some store-bought medley of bird seed, which may not be the case, or may be carefully chosen to replicate exactly what squirrels eat in that particular habitat). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like cantaloupe isn't a harmful food for nutrias. Whether it's a good idea to feed an invasive species is another question, but that the food is not appropriate for the species, I'd have to see documentation for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Poc o² 18:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Changing my vote. I agree with Frank about feeding wild animals to get a nice photo Poc o² 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending revision: There are suspiciously round light gray spots in the water that seem to be dust spots rather than drift. -- Axel ^(talk) 06:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Both Charles and Frank have ignored the fact that animals living near urban areas tend to get influenced by people. Is it rare to find a gull or crow feeding on chips on the sidewalk? According to [1], nutria are also known to feed on vegetation near the water. There is no "set diet". Even the University of Oregon states that nutria have been known to invade gardens and yes they do eat the melons: [2]. That is why they are considered invasive in many places, they are just too able to adapt. And as for eating the water, they naturally bring food to the water to eat. Plus, other animals like raccoons do this also, so it's not only the nutria eating melons. A groundhog once ate a watermelon in my garden. Is a watermelon not part of their normal diet? Maybe. But did it eat it voluntarily(I didn't feed it)? Yes. Enough with the "appropriate food". Nutria are opportunistic animals and will eat anything they can find. As long as it doesn't kill it, then it's appropriate. Plus, do you think zoos would even feed them the appropriate food? I think not --Booth sift 05:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stick with my opinions, but have removed my oppose vote. It is a grey area for introduced species. 09:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Charles (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gray squirrels are a notoriously invasive species in the UK, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quote: "I only give bread to attract them" – I am against feeding wildlife in order to take a photo, see this article. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Schulenburg: But the food that the Nutria is eating is clearly not bread. However, I also agree with your article. There is no value of baiting animals as the shot would not be as authentic and it may introduce negative habits. --Booth sift 07:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Frank, I agree that you really shouldn't be feeding wild animals in order to photograph them, but is it unethical to take a photo of an animal that someone else fed without your say-so, and should we oppose the photo of a particular photographer because he said he sometimes feeds animals of a given species but did not do so in this instance? Also, do you think it was wrong for us to feature this photo, in which the photographer admitted specifically to feeding a wild animal in order to get a "mouth-open shot"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm generally opposed to feeding wild animals in order to get a shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which I respect, but I don't think that really answered my questions, except for the last one, by implication. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be best if I withdrew this nomination despite the support? --Booth sift 03:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would disrespect a clear consensus in this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to withdraw your hosting of this nomination, I'll gladly take it over. I think it's totally absurd to deny a photograph a feature because the photographer admitted to feeding this species of animal on other occasions and not this occasion. Let's be straight about the implications of that. Does it mean Gzen92's pictures, or perhaps animal pictures only, can never be featured? If so, since Charles also admitted feeding a wild squirrel in order to get a better picture, should that picture be stripped of its FP status, and should all his other nominations be automatically failed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I don't want another incident to happen. I will respect the majority here. --Booth sift 17:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if you don't support the photo anymore because the photographer admits to feeding nutrias bread at other times, go ahead and oppose and I'll take over the nomination. Just don't withdraw before I have a chance to do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Desperate? I clearly said I changed my mind. I do not plan on opposing nor withdrawing, thank you. --Booth sift 18:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be desperate? This has gotten weird, and I'm outta here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Were you interpreting my sentence the wrong way ... Did you not ask me to oppose this image and hand it over to you? Wait, didn't this already happen before. How did that go? Well, this conversation has turned the wrong direction. --Booth sift 07:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Frank. --Ivar (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2019 - НПП Подільські Товтри - 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2019 at 10:55:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created and uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Ivar (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC) It is quite dark but I like the atmosphere.[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful mood. Cmao20 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 20:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The right crop is not convincing to me, it gives the impression that it's unbalanced. Poc o² 17:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Defines "brisk". Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grey headed flying fox - skimming water - AndrewMercer - DSC00530.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2019 at 07:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Chiroptera (Bats)
Info created by Bald white guy - uploaded by Bald white guy - nominated by Bald white guy -- Bald white guy (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bald white guy (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is that another bat in the background? --Booth sift 07:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: No - just the edge of the pond or maybe a tree. In some locations the flying foxes come in groups, especially if its hot and there's a large colony. In this case it was just infrequently, one at a time, given that its just a very small colony and not yet summer. --Bald white guy (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Made me smile a bit, because at first sight I thought it was yet another bird ;-) And an excellent performance of the new α7R IV, I'm really jealous. --A.Savin 13:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Dinkum (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A typical "bird over water" shot, but it's a bat. :) --Peulle (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that's not something you see every day. Cmao20 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the explanation--Booth sift 16:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. -- Axel ^(talk) 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, excellent, only not very sharp but in this case it is also very difficult (impossible?) --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very dynamic, and quite a striking animal with an interesting facial expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The focus is on the wings, but nice composition and difficult shot, looking good at half the size -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20 Poc o² 17:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow :) - Benh (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gymnadenia odoratissima alba - Niitvälja.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2019 at 08:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info All by Ivar (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's quite an excellent photo of buds and flowers, but what caused the background to be so dark? Just shadow? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it's the shadow of a tree. Imho it gives nice contrast. --Ivar (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe greater than ideal contrast, but that's a bit nitpicky. Fine photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background is good for me. Very sharp and well composed. Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, but this plant somehow doesn't wow me. --A.Savin 13:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is great but it lacks wow to me Poc o² 18:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful specimen, sharp image and good light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wow for me, sorry. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 11:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 13:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extra for FP. Common image. -- Karelj (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales

File:Shah Mosque (Isfahan).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2019 at 10:18:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 10:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 10:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info there are at least 3 dust spots on the sky. --Ivar (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done fixed. Hanooz 12:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support because of the architecture AND because of the clouds. --A.Savin 13:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, overall, but I'd like to see a photo with the dome on the left included in full, for comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By another photographer: File:Shah(Emam ) Mosque , Isfahan.jpg. Hanooz 19:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That composition could also be an FP if done in high resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Henry39 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive work. --Gnosis (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phyllidia elegans (23806633304).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2019 at 14:21:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Rickard Zerpe - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 04:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

First female spacewalk, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2019 at 21:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Astronauts Christina Koch (on the right) and Jessica Meir (on the left).
Astronauts Christina Koch (on the right) and Jessica Meir (on the left).
Astronauts Christina Koch (on the right) and Jessica Meir (on the left).

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Astronauts
Info Astronauts Christina Koch (on the right) and Jessica Meir (on the left) who are preparing for the first female spacewalk in history conducted exclusively by women. Not to be confused with the walk of Svetlana Savitskaya in 1984, who was the first woman to walk with her teammate.- uploaded by NASA - nominated by LLs -- LLs (discussion) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical photographs of an event. -- LLs (discussion) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A great event, but these three pictures are similar enough that I'm not sure why we'd promote all three? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rhododendrites Because that is a continuation of photographs and according to the rules, they can all go if they are related, but if you think it is better to just put one, I have no problems, the last image on the right. -- LLs (discussion) 02:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't mean to imply it was against the rules. It is certainly within the rules. The sequence itself, to me, just seems very minimal as compared to the content of any one of these individually, which don't seem that different from one another. We'll see what others say, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title and description are wrong. This is not the first female space walk. It's the first all-female space walk. The first woman to walk in space was Svetlana Savitskaya in 1984 when she space walked with a man. Seven Pandas (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seven Pandas Correct, but this is the first where there are only women, so it is recognized as a historical event, the same American government recognized it as such. -- LLs (discussion) 02:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that Trump called it the first female spacewalk - I hope that isn't your reason for using the term. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan Kekek No, the detail of the difference between the first woman to make a walk (1984) and the first space walk made only by women (2019) has already been added. -- LLs (discussion) 03:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language is important for image titles. As stated above, having a space walk by only women is called an "all-female space walk" in English and that is how this is decribed in media. "First female space walk" is the first time a woman in any company makes a space walk, there is a difference, so in this case the set title is wrong. --Cart (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even though I'm clearly biased about this event (Jessica Meir's mother is Swedish, so this is huge in media here), I don't see this as a good set nom. The images are only slightly different, and in any other environment they could almost be seen as just zooming in on a subject. Having three images seems superfluous. First human on the moon was also huge and it didn't get a set nom. I would recommend that you {{withdraw}} this and select one image for a single nom. The titles of the images are also incorrect English and should be changed from "female" to "all-female" per my comment above. --Cart (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Files renamed. --Cart (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree Cart. Plus the photo on the left isn't good at all. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firstly I don't think this meets the requirement of a "set" nomination. The point of a "set" nomination is that one can describe the criteria for a finite number of images. Front/back; day-time/evening/night-time. This is just three images arbitrarily taken where the women are posing for the camera. Us photographers have lots of such sets on our hard discs, and typically pick one from them that is the best. I'm not really seeing any one of them at FP level. If the "spacewalk" is the "wow" then, well, they aren't space walking. I think generally that historic events are best nominated sometime afterwards. This gives plenty time to collect some photos and distance to judge objectively. -- Colin (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Interesting event, but I'm not sure why we need three FPs of it, and it's not very coherent as a set. I'm not sure any of these quite have sufficient wow for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like three selfies with little value. At least make it look more important, these have no wow and I wouldn't be able to tell what was going on without an explanation. --Booth sift 00:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dover Castle SE.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 19:53:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#United_Kingdom
Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Neptuul (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, and the foreground doesn’t really appeal to me. --Kreuz schnabel 20:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting lighting and composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the fence as the central foreground for a castle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Neptuul (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alouatta seniculus Global.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 10:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The remarkable point is the hyoid bone whose extraordinary shape allows this little monkey to be heard at 3km. Thank you Tomer T for this appointment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I should go back to nominating skull images --Booth sift 07:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pont de Bir-Hakeim at night as seen from Promenade d'Australie 140223 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 07:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created and uploaded by DXR - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition of the other Paris image is much better, here I am not convinced by the left crop Poc o² 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO very beautiful and good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20160805 Inle Lake 7434.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 19:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info Fisherman on Inle Lake in Myanmar. All by me -- Jakubhal 19:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 19:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice shot, I like it. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a small boat, wow--Booth sift 22:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, except the light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and unusual image. Cmao20 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per Basile, I think the highlights should be dialed down a bit. Also, I don't think this is a very unusual image at Inle Lake, but it is a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Corrected very slightly, but the effect on the water which I think that you both referring is minimal. I won't apply correction on just water, it's very hard to separate due to the net in the foreground. -- Jakubhal 05:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Sufficiently dialed down, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Banz Klosterkirche Decke P5161650 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2019 at 19:42:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Ceiling fresco in the former abbey church St. Peter and Dionysius Koster Banz. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I dissent. Beautiful frescoes, but for FP, I'd like more sharpness. To me, this is a QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Ikan Kekek --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I finally decided to change my vote --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of it is quite sharp. Size covers many details and gives a better overview than an even sharper shot of some part. --Axel ^(talk) 07:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's 58 megapixels, so a bit of unsharpness is forgiveable. Certainly it's sharper in the middle than at the edges, but ultimately we shouldn't expect anything different. Cmao20 (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm judging based on the observed size of the frescoes at full size, not the number of megapixels. If there were more of a closeup, I'd be happy to judge it based on sharpness at less than full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berkenzwam (Piptoporus betulinus) (d.j.b.) 14.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2019 at 15:00:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Piptoporus betulinus.
Info The underside of a weathered Birch mushroom (Piptoporus betulinus) on a broken dead birch branch between fallen leaves in mild sunlight.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t understand the composition – why is the main subject so small? Fill the frame with it, for better detail. --Kreuz schnabel 18:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: the photo shows a natural process. The birch branch was already dead. The mushroom has used it. The mushroom is now also dying. All that between (Dead) autumn leaves. How beautiful can the natural cycle be.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice but your intention doesn’t really work with me, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 14:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite work for me.--Peulle (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, rich composition. Let your eyes move around the picture frame as if it were a painting. I'm not sure about the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the better of these two but this still doesn't make FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case -- Karelj (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Daniel Case--Booth sift 04:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an exzellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramic view of Lake Tekapo 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2019 at 20:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note added (stitching error). --Ivar (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the stitching error is corrected, but once that's done I think it's FP. Cmao20 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ivar, there's still a bit of waterline that isn't quite right. Cmao20 (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New version uploaded, I corrected as much as possible. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better, but not good enough for me to support. Waterline looks unnatural. --Ivar (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Whatever the problem may be, I'm not seeing it, but I am seeing a beautiful, peaceful composition and scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pont de Bir-Hakeim at night, Paris 3 February 2019.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 13:18:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Pierre Blaché - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 07:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Well... I'm actually not impressed by the composition... Not seeing the pattern here. It's quite a common shot really. So beside the fact it's has lovely colors of a night shot, it doesn't move me a lot (but I'm biased as a local of course) - Benh (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak support On a second thought, it's hard to oppose. Colours are really nice, and I'm not sure how I would have shot it otherwise. The metro is also a nice additional touch. - Benh (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Too much water (with shadow) but overall pleasing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Édouard Manet, en buste, de face - Nadar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 16:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Nadar - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very intense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adult Northern Gannet in flight.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2019 at 18:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order:Suliformes
Info created by hobbyfotowiki - uploaded by hobbyfotowiki - nominated by Hobbyfotowiki -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbyfotowiki, you already have two noms and have tried a third. This page will be archived directly. You are welcome to renominate this when one or two of your first noms have been completed or {{withdrawn}}. --Cart (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Cart (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for this fauxpas, but I am new and I didn´t know and for me it is really hard to understand. I have withdrawn one of my two Candiates and only one active canidate now...hobbyfotowiki (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination hobbyfotowiki([[User talk:hobbyfotowikitalk]]| 22:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cap Leucate - lighthouse 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 05:08:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support (note added for one dustspot). --Ivar (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks --Llez (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - There's a very big dust spot at the upper margin just a bit to the left of the upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Thanks --Llez (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tupungato (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, both main objects are sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice bold subjects and excellent resolution/quality. Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is that your sunglasses on the left?--Ermell (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Sharp eye! I didn't notice it. No, it is not mine --Llez (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Faloria Cortina d'Ampezzo 25.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 06:29:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Belluno
Info created, uploaded, nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't work for me; I'd want the cable in the middle to carry the car.--Peulle (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and sky is partly overexposed. --Ivar (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but the comp is not ideal. Would be best if the car was in the center. --Booth sift 07:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but I agree that the composition seems a little bit unbalanced, and the top-left corner of sky is a bit bright. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Time to withdraw this one. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:A large electric phosphate smelting furnace used to make elemental phosphorus in a TVA chemical plant in the vicinity of Muscle Shoals, Ala.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 10:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Alfred T. Palmer - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but out of focus, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Sharpness is acceptable even at 8mp, image is great. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per others. -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support overall quality of composition and wow factor compensate sufficiently for the lack of sharpness IMO — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Nice at 4000 px across. Renown photographer, interior shot, and 77 year-old picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out, per below: colors significantly altered. Please nominate the original -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ --Cart (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per info about strong retouching. --Cart (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ --El Grafo (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per comments below. --El Grafo (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given the conditions and age of the image Poc o² 17:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per Poco, great for a 77-year-old photo and very interesting subject. Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors look strange to me (surprisingly pale and cold, given that he is working in front of a furnace). Are we sure that this is the best version of the picture? I remember that there were some issues in the past with modifications made by Jan Arkesteijn for which he has been blocked indefinitely. This seems to be the original, this another version. At least, the picture info should indicate that it is a heavily retouched version and not Palmer's original. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per B2Belgium, original photo has warmer colors. --Ivar (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar, plus the worker being out of focus. --Kreuz schnabel 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was right to hesitate on this one. Ivar and B2 are right--Booth sift 04:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Hohenwerfen, Werfen, Austria, 2019-05-18, DD 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2019 at 18:07:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
Info Far view of castle Hohenwerfen, Werfen, Austria. c/u/n Poc o² 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull lights, overblown sky (not in a sense that it's clipping but rather the clouds on an overcast day like this shouldn't be in the whites, rather in the greys). -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kenny. Top of mountains blending in with the sky. Overall non appealing composition. Subject a bit lost/hidden in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imho this has much more interesting composition. --Ivar (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar, please don't display any other files on a nom. It is usually read as an "Alternative" by the FPC Bot and can cause trouble when closing the nom. Use a link, I have fixed this for you. --Cart (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really? Maybe not the most interesting light conditions but its >35mpx and very good quality, and the subject itself has plenty of wow for me. Cmao20 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view but grey sky and dull colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 04:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I really don't like that sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 20:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hattie Caraway by Harris & Ewing, 1914.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2019 at 01:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Harris & Ewing - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pfarrkirche Gmünd - Hochaltar 20190822 035.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 11:09:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The "Hochaltar" (main altar) in a church in Austria created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too bad but not outstanding either. Poor handling of contrast, many bright areas are blown. Strange artifacts / doubled contours on most edges, seems to have been oversharpened. I think you’d need additional lighting to take an outstanding image here. --Kreuz schnabel 13:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and too ordinary--Booth sift 23:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel a little responsible for this nomination, because I said on COM:Photography critiques that the photo looked very good to me and could be worth nominating. However, I did bring up that it felt like the picture was taken too close to the altar. I like the light better than you all, because it illuminates the cross and the angel, but I don't love the slanted statues on the left and right. I'd prefer a picture from a bit further away that has the entire chapel in focus, as the best FPs of similar subjects that we've promoted have. My bad, though, that I was thinking more positively than critically when I posted to Photography critiques. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think the image quality is overall quite good, but the composition doesn't quite work for me. There's too much relatively uninteresting floor, and not enough altar. A narrower focus on the altar itself would I think be better. Cmao20 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination No problem, it was worth a try :). I am very thankful to this community for the valuable tips, so I am fine with these votes --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camp - Notes on Fashion at the Met - Burberry rainbow cape (73854).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2019 at 05:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects
Info A rainbow cape by Christopher Bailey for Burberry, on display at the recent Camp: Notes on Fashion exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would've loved to get in there with some better lighting [for photography] and with a tripod (or at least without the throngs of people), but I'm nominating because it's not the sort of thing we see often at FPC and, well, it's a rainbow cape. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everybody seems to be ignoring this, but it's good for me. Nice clear blue background, the cape is sharp and well-captured. Could be a fashion illustration. Cmao20 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The hearts on the head could be more organized, it's just a little mess --Booth sift 07:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For one of Renly Baratheon's personal guard, no doubt, had the show ever shown them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Naqsh-e Jahan Square from the gheisariye Vault.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2019 at 11:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz (Possibly taken from the second floor of Qeysarie bazaar) -- Hanooz 11:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 11:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I see from the history that the photographer has altered the photo several times since first upload. Most of the changes seem harmless though I would caution against making changes to permanent features. The original upload had a litttle more height top and bottom, and I'm not sure why that was cropped out -- can it be restored? -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the edits are not constructive we can simply revert to the earlier versions. If they are I can send an email to the uploader and ask him to upload a bigger version. Hanooz 13:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sky is fake?--Claus 13:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are right. The clouds near the horizon do not have the appearance of clouds near a horizon. Hanooz can you ask the uploader about this. It is one thing to remove tourists from an image but sky replacement is a big no no. The WLM Iran team should also be informed. Compare File:Naghshejahan.jpg from 2018. -- Colin (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - On hold I'm speaking with him on email. Hanooz 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - For me fake sky is also a no go (especially when it's communism propaganda quality like here), but we have cases of sky substitution which got close to POTY in the past ;) - Benh (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped because of fixing perspective errors and straight vertical lines. The clouds are fake but I clone them because I thought that manipulation dont cause the main subject to be misrepresented and not intended to deceive. this image merged from 25 picture with 24mm tilt shift lens . (5*5) 5 frame and 5 level exposure for each frame and finaly merged to this picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirpashaei (talk • contribs)
~~Oppose~~ The composition is gorgeous. The thorough photoshopping that went on top is less... The lighting of the clouds doesn't even match the one on the ground. And I don't get how the dark area of the inside "dome" is of so poor quality despite the many raw pictures which served as a basis. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No fake skies, please. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Other than the sky, this is great. Kestreltail (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ It's quite startlingly impressive to look at, but it really isn't accurate to reality. The sky simply doesn't look natural, and I feel that the image is quite oversaturated too. Cmao20 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. FP now with the proper sky. Cmao20 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Per above, as member of the WLM jury in Iran I'll have to make sure that we discard this image, a pity. Poc o² 09:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin, Benh, Frank Schulenburg, Kestreltail, and Poco a poco: Could you please take a look at the new version (with the real sky)? Hanooz 12:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hanooz:This kind of editing are not welcome here at FPC nor in WLM. WLM contest's rules there are clear, and this kind of editing is clearly violating them. Reverting that edit doesn't make things fine again. I'm only ready to change my vote if the photographer assures you that no other images are edited like this one was or in that case that a new version is uploaded where deceiving edits are reverted. The photographer should take this seriously, if we find such an editing again in any other of the images submitted to WLM I'd recommend the other members of the jury not to let pass any of the photographer's images. Poc o² 15:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco He says this one's clouds are also from another image and this one is edited as he mentioned in the caption. Hanooz 16:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, Hanooz, I

Support now Poc o² 16:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not as impressive with the blank sky, but still FP in my opinion. Kestreltail (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The light and possibly the sharpness could be better, but this is a very big panorama and a fine picture of a very striking motif. Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not--Booth sift 01:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Signac - Portrait de Félix Fénéon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 13:43:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by Paul Signac - uploaded by CFCF - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 13:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus 13:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rotdrossel.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 10:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Turdidae (Thrushes)
Info created by hobbyfotowiki - uploaded by hobbyfotowiki - nominated by Hobbyfotowiki -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hi Hobbyfotowiki, you have to add this page to COM:FPC to make it visible, I'll do that for you. Take a look and learn for the next time. I'll also fix the FP category for you, you need to familiarize yourself with that too. All the best, --Cart (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment love the smooth background, but the crop is a bit tight, imho, especially at the top and I think a little bit of local brightening in the eye/head area could give it some more "pop". --El Grafo (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop is a bit tight, sure, but the image quality is great. Also, awwww. Cmao20 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, very good sharpness and detail, but I'd like some light on the bird - not necessarily in post, but for a beam of sunlight to have been on the bird's face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good resolution with detail, but crop is imho too tight. --Ivar (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Thank you very much for your comments. They are always useful. But I have to inform you that I didn´t cropped this photo. Perhaps this time I should go a few steps back to have more backrgound, but with my 300mm lens I am quit happy if there isn´t too much distance between me and the birds.And Yes, a sunny day perhaps would be better, but I on my own like bird pictures without sunschine, too, but they are special... Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are several issues here, the top crop is definitely too tight, sharpness is good but not excellent, specially the peak and the lighting is not really good Poc o² 14:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please add coordinates or location where the photo was taken, we usually expect that from FPCs. --Cart (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I have shot on the island of Helgoland(talk) 19:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add such info to description on the file page not here; this page will be archived in 9 days, the info and the corresponding categories needs to be where people will see it all the time. This goes for your other nomination as well. Take a look at this file as an example of what good description and categorization looks like. --Cart (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not perfect quality - per Poco. -- Karelj (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unfortunately the crop is too tight at the top. @hobbyfotowiki: Many of your uploads are very tightly framed (1, 2, 3...). You should try to grant more room to the subject in your compositions, they need to breath visually -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't stand out from our many bird pictures for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination hobbyfotowiki([[User talk:hobbyfotowikitalk]]| 21:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isaac Lake during golden hour, moments before a storm (DSCF2631).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2019 at 19:45:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British_Columbia
Info -- Trougnouf (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Cmao20 (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and nothing special, for me no reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a dust spot in the sky, should be removed --Llez (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done found it, thank you! --Trougnouf (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Karelij --Milseburg (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sent, (1430 m.) dorp in kanton Graubünden in Zwitserland 09-09-2019 (actm.) 20.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2019 at 15:04:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors # Wooden door of the main entrance of the church. (Detail)

Info Detail of the church door. The beautiful carved handle. When I look at this photo, I tend to turn the handle.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - That's beautiful, and I may support, but I'd like to know what your thoughts are about the reasons why you cropped in those places on the right and left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: rivets appear on the left. Not on the right. In my mind the symmetry will be lost too much.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm more concerned with the decorations being cut, but that would be a trivial reason not to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice motif. Cmao20 (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to be a party pooper, but this just doesn't wow me. It also bothers me that the handle is off-center. Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little shallow on the DoF, but I love the earth tones. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Castle of Estaing 17.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2019 at 15:01:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Castle mostly obscured in this view, and this isn't its best side, with what looks like a modern flat wall facing the viewer. The image is small 7MP and not sharp so I can't really see the brickwork. Your File:Castle of Estaing 22.jpg is better (though some inconvenient scaffolding). All of the pictures in this set suffer from harsh bright midday sun. -- Colin (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Colin on the view and composition and that the other photo is better, though I'm fine with the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Massif de Lherz from Port de Bassies 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2019 at 15:07:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is a bit random, with the left third and right quarter not really contributing to the view. I don't think the harsh mid-day sunlight is doing the image any favours, with the right side especially washed out. It looks like the image was over-exposed and highlights dropped to grey. We have a lot of alpine photographs and while the view from a peak is amazing in real life, for it to be FP as a photograph, I think we need great light/weather or a special composition. A wide-angle-panorama at mid-day with a pale blue sky and washed out rocks isn't special enough IMO. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Milseburg (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead Vlei Tree.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2019 at 08:06:23 (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) 08:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vignettage could be corrected but I love the colors and composition --Dinkum (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may be one of the most exciting photography spots on earth but this composition doesn't work for me, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but the plants in the back ruin it for me. It would have been somewhat better with only the trees and the dunes. Also, the ground in front is not that appealing--Booth sift 16:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love this composition, but I don't like the right crop. I would like to see the whole shadow and please place the tree in the center of the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had the tree in the centre of the original shot, and then cropped it like that because it seemed too central to me. You can take a look at the original version of the image to see what it looked like. If you prefer that one, I'm happy to provide it (or a similar crop) as alternative. --Domob (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the thing: we have a surprising number of very similar FPs from the same area: 1, 2, 3, 4. I do rather like this one, and like the striking colors, but when comparing, the colors do look much more orange in this one. Might it be a different spot with a different mineral composition? Was the light that different (looks to have been around the same time of day as #3/4)? To be clear I'm neutral-leaning-support at this stage. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I personally think that this shot looks much better than at least 3, 4 (who look rather bland to me). I like the other two (1, 2) a lot better, but still think that my nomination has more "wow" at least to me. That's why I nominated it. But of course all this is purely subjective, and I'm probably less experienced as a photographer than most of you. --Domob (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yellowish, and per Rhododendrites -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was early morning light, but I agree that it was too red/yellow. Corrected the WB. --Domob (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per my comments above. Thanks for editing. I do think the sky is rather still too saturated fwiw. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition isn't really working for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment Here's an alternate crop, which is slightly wider on the right. The tree is more central here and the shadow visible. --Domob (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the other crop better personally, but also support this one. --Domob (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This composition works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose If only the sky wasn’t that filled up with sharpened noise. The purple clouds don’t look too real to me either but maybe that’s due to the morning light. --Kreuz schnabel 13:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the noise in the sky is a bit annoying. I did not apply any sharpening to it, though. --Domob (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ There is partially too much noise in the sky, I'd also reduce the contrast and the top left corner is too dark, it looks unreal Poc o² 18:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made the top-left corner a bit brighter now, so it matches the overall sky more evenly. I tried to reduce the noise in the sky, but unfortunately that always also hurts legitimate details in the picture, so I didn't do any noise reduction in the end. --Domob (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Domob, that's probably an improvement, but ping everyone now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzschnabel, Poco², Basotxerri - please take a look at the new version and the alternative crop. I may have some time on Sunday (but not before) to give the noise in the sky another try as well. --Domob (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would really prefer you to withdraw this nomination and place a new one so all users voting do so on the same image. You never get a clean voting with umpteen alterations through the period. --Kreuz schnabel 19:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An improvement, but half the way IMHO Poc o² 20:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poco², there's a new version now with reduced noise in the sky (the rest of the picture is not affected at all). --Domob (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noise is still there but it looks better, will now move to

Neutral Poc o² 14:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 04:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Dead Vlei Tree central.jpg

File:Impatiens capensis.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2019 at 02:48:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Ericales
Info: another Impatiens species, an orange jewelweed. The plant's flowers are quite small, ~2 cm in height, resulting in a significant crop. All by me. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why has everyone ignored this? --Booth sift 18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit perplexed by this too :-) --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Morello - MuseBristol 050619-15 (48035800936).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 19:01:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Raph_PH - uploaded by Tm - nominated by JTs -- JTs (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JTs (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice QI but doesn't wow me, sorry. It could work without the distracting lights in the background and if the photo was taken from the front. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where is the wow in this? --Booth sift 23:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:SondaFantom2D.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2019 at 09:06:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dynamic imaging in Electric Capacitance Tomography

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info Dynamic imaging in Electric Capacitance Tomography, created, uploaded, nominated by WolfgangNihil -- Wolfganghil (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WolfgangNihil (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please provide a description in English on the file page. --Cart (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cart is that ok? WolfgangNihil (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. It always help to understand what we are looking at. :) --Cart (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Little wow and the margins look random -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really wowing --Booth sift 04:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, though these images may be valuable. I think moving images can be nominated at COM:VIC. Does anyone know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose something went wrong with the file somewhere (possibly due to the GIF format's limitation to 256 colors?). Focus at the green bars in the left panel or the rainbow scale on the right for a moment and you'll see dancing pixels. --El Grafo (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Старе єврейське кладовище у Чернівцях.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 12:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Ukraine
Info created by User:Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by User:Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but low resolution for NIKON D800. --Ivar (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't feel it with the branches left and right -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good mood, works for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty, but a bit too much of the image is in shadow for me. I think it's been downsized, too. Cmao20 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough quality for FP, per Cmao20. -- Karelj (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 05:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 43-45 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 15:15:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran, Category:Featured pictures of mosques in Iran
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Editor-1 -- 15:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the nominator. -- Editor-1 (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality too low for FP, too noisy, not sharp and detailed enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. As it is, this image is something of a missed opportunity; it's an absolutely stunning motif, but per Michielverbeek it's not great in terms of image quality, mainly because the sharpness has been missed slightly. Poco a poco, I see that it's in your category of FP candidates that need rework. Are they any improvements you can make to make it sharper and bring out detail - if so I'd be inclined to support. Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Excellent composition. I'll await possible edits before making any decision on whether or how to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will look into it this evening (CET) but I cannot promise anything yet Poc o² 05:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Ivar (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikan Kekek, thanks for waiting, but seeing already so many opposes is hard to find motivation to work on it. I could improve the sharpness using a different frame and doing some editing, but it's time consuming and patience is not abundant at FPC. Maybe some other day. For now I'll not update any new version. Poc o² 18:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand. However, I don't think I can support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: I don't know how much time it takes for edit, but this is the only chance for this file to be featured, please do it, there are totally three oppose vote, all based on one comment (not sharp), if you can provide a sharp version, I hope their vote will be changed, thanks! -- Editor-1 (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point. All the oppose votes, and my neutral vote, are based entirely on the sharpness issue. IMO a sharp version of this would storm through FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Than is a gorgeous ceiling, but it's just too blurry. It's sad that you stopped down this much and used this low iso. There was definitely room for shorter exposure than 1/8s (without noticeable noise, and without affecting the DOF) - Benh (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 04:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per pthers. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello @Michielverbeek, Cmao20, Iifar, Uoaei1, Ikan Kekek, Benh, Boothsift, and Daniel Case: I finally opted for uploaded an alternative (different frame): File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 43-45 HDR Alt.jpg to this file instead of using this frame to fix the original one. If you Editor-1, believe that this other image is good enough for FP, you are welcome to close this FP and nominate the new file, thank you! Poc o² 16:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely an improvement, and I would be willing to support it. Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: Thanks for uploading another image, it is much better. Someone please close this FPC, so I will open another FPC for that new mage, thank you. -- Editor-1 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Ok, no problem, I close it for you. All you need to do ist adding {{Withdrawn}} Poc o² 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 43-45 HDR Alt.jpg. -- Editor-1 (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Editor-1 (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Numenius madagascariensis 2 - Stockton Sandspit.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 23:03:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Numenius
Info This picture of the Madagascariensis, even bigger than the long-billed curlew, shows the long downcurved bill against a perfect background. Created and uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Axel Tschentscher
Support -- Axel ^(talk) 23:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality -- the feathers look like upscaled, there are visible artefacts. --A.Savin 00:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @A.Savin: : "upscaled"? Are you certain the plumage looks so different from this FP? --Axel ^(talk) 01:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --A.Savin 02:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t say upscaled, it rather looks oversharpened to me – doubled contours and contrast-enhanced edges. And the background has obviously been blurred in postprocessing, the cutout line being perfectly visible on the bird’s outline, especially the head. Quality drawbacks which are hardly excused on an FPC. --Kreuz schnabel 08:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others, which is really a pity, for lighting and composition are excellent. --Kreuz schnabel 08:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Axel ^(talk) 12:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:01 Magura, Romania - Piatra Craiului mountains.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 11:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
Info created by Tupungato - uploaded by Tupungato - nominated by Tupungato -- Tupungato (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tupungato (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, and skeptical about the composition. Not the sharpest either, given (I guess) easy shooting conditions - Benh (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Benh. It's a very pretty scene, but I can't see any clear idea behind the composition. It feels like any shot taken in that landscape would look more or less the same as this one. Cmao20 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems a little overexposed and low-contrast to me, in addition to the others' complaints about the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 05:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Messier 78.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019 at 22:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by European Southern Observatory - uploaded by Jmencisom - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's rare that I would oppose an ESO image. Cmao20 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Sukkah at Congregation Emanu-El (05326p).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 03:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Today marks the end of Sukkot, for which this grand sukkah was constructed last week in Temple Emanu-El in New York City. It happened to overlap with Open House New York (open doors days), so I was able to take a few pictures this morning. (This image is three stitched together). created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely, another Jewish religious building from you. Cmao20 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Even more sharpness at full size would be welcome, but I think it's already an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 01:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspective problem on both sides: the walls don't seem vertical -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it is a good composition. It is taken from very close, and this yields that unnecessary horizontal curvature. Glaring stitching error on the right side, and perspective issue, as per Basile. - Benh (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, I think this could be converted to rectilinear projection without introducing too much distortion. - Benh (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll open it up later tonight and see what I can fix. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded. I fixed the stitching error and adjusted the perspective. While I was at it, I did a little selective sharpening and brought down the highlights a bit. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest pinging everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew J.Kurbiko, Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Hanooz, Basile Morin, and Benh: Done — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better. But with Benh's comment, I'm intrigued about the curvature of the stairs. They seem naturally rounded on the picture, while they might not be like that in reality -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mercury (planet).svg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 19:07:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by A loose necktie(talk) 19:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A loose necktie (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The exported image is very small (canvas size), the references are insufficient in the image description and cosmetics stars without any value --Wilfredor (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canvas size is irrelevant for SVG images because vector diagrams are scalable to any size; the only reference given in the description states specifically what other source was used to create this image and includes a link (I have now expanded this as well); the cosmetic stars are easy enough to remove, and I have done so. A loose necktie (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A loose necktie, while canvas size does not fundamentally matter, as SVG are scalable, it does seem to affect the default preview size on the file page, and the size you get when you click on the preview, which is rather small. Could you make it larger please so that the default preview is bigger? I think Wilfredor is asking for a reference for your interior parts. For example, "anticrust" is not mentioned on en:Mercury (planet) and Googling "mercury anticrust" turns up nothing relevant at all. The existing File:Mercury's internal structure1.jpg diagram used on Wikipedia includes depth information, which would seem to be worth having. I would expect solid references for the names of significant layers in the plant body, and for the thickness of each layer that is directly proportional to the displayed thickness on the diagram. -- Colin (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand much, much better. Rescaling the image has a few effects: several of my SVG filters do not scale along with the image, so changing actual image size means having to use other filters here, but hopefully most of these will not matter. Regarding references for the content of the diagram: please see the current file description for these. I had tried reorganizing the content of this portion of the Wikipedia article to include mention of this layer, but my edit was reverted wholesale and the information went along with it. Still, my diagram is no less accurate for all this, yes? Thank you for the explanations! A loose necktie (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin for your clarification, please, A loose necktie take a look to my edition here which shows the proper way to add references. Also, you could take a look to Referencing for beginners. Btw, I think it is only necessary to reduce the font size and remove the last text you added that could go in the description of the image. Regards --Wilfredor (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Brombeerlätter Rubus caesius stack32 20190819-RM-8191922.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 13:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info Young leaves of a blackberry plant. Stacked with Helicon Focus from 32 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Poc o² 20:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I always enjoy your focus stacks, they must take a lot of work to get right. Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some work but not a lot :-)--Ermell (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like being able to see all those hairs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 32 shot stack. Impressive results. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice despite the minor focus stacking problems: around the central drop, and more at the right. Sharp picture and pleasant reflections at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Columba livia Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 17:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Columbiformes_(Pigeons_and_Doves)
Info Of the Common pigeon genus this is a specimen with all relevant details (bright red eyes, red feet, ringed plumage, white feathers, greenish neck ring) in perfect focus against an unobtrusive background. The only complete FP we have loses the details in the shadow and, therefore, does not get even close to this picture. Created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Axel Tschentscher
Support -- Axel ^(talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the points in the nomination, but don't we ask for geographic coordinates? Are they there? I'm not seeing them for this file (nor for the other one). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Geolocation is mandatory for VI, at FP we don't have a rule like this – it's more like a "nice to have" in most cases. Personally, I sometimes ask for it if I consider it important for the subject, but wouldn't insist on it for a picture like this. After all, this is an incredibly common species, and with the background blurred like this there are no clues as to where the picture was taken anyway. It could be a scene from almost any city in Belgium (or on the planet). --El Grafo (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has enough green CA on the right side to kill an everyday nom. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The picture is good, and probably among most aesthetic pictures ever of this unaesthetic species. But the exact location is missing: not only geotag, also a category (city, district, street/square -- in short, the lowest available depth). Without these infos, I hesitate to support. Unfortunately, Lviatour apparently is not active. --A.Savin 12:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hopefully, someone will be able to get in contact with Luc Viatour for the location info. In the meantime, I support the image as being acceptable for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a very good pigeon picture, and while this isn't the most beautiful pigeon I've ever seen, there's nothing ugly about it to me. But since green CA was mentioned, I suppose there may be some on the tail feathers, and that's inhibiting me from voting to support this nom. We really need M. Viatour to come here and participate. It looks to me like the email shown on his personal gallery page is operational, though whether it would actually get to him is anyone's guess. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good catch --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per KennyOMG --Llez (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral We can do something about the green CA. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Careful, there is one isolated line "(x) I withdraw... Editor-1" at the end that does NOT belong to this nomination. --Axel ^(talk) 19:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I doubt I was the only one who was faked out by that. It seems entirely stray. Should we delete it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done (diff) -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diplora labyrinthiformis (Grooved Brain Coral) closeup.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 20:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Anthozoa
Info created b& uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small for 2019 (4MP) and I think the colour isn't natural (most images are much more pale). -- Colin (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eileen Collins (S93-E-5033, 1999-07-24).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 13:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by NASA - uploaded and nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs; See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eileen Collins for more background info. -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture of the first female pilot of a Space Shuttle. Cmao20 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true she became the first female pilot in two earlier missions before this one. But she also became the first female commander (a higher rank) in this mission pictured. She is pictured here at the commander's station on day 1 of her historic mission. She also commanded a later mission a few years after this. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems that this impossible reading makes the hair stand on end :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In space there are no bad hair days ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Velden Seecorso 10 Schlosshotel W-Trakt Balkenfenster S-Ansicht 24102019 7295.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 15:58:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cart (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely shot, the sort of thing many people would walk straight past without realising it would make a good photo. Cmao20 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support someone put a window on that shrub! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a great postal card -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply, yet special.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The windows look tilted to me. Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Kestreltail: I made a minor correction according to your interception. —- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thanks! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus 16:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Benh (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 31 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lommel soldatenkerkhof.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 21:28:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other
Info I'm not going to pretend the technical quality of this image is perfect (although it's not bad), but I believe it deserves FP anyway. I found it well-composed and tremendously moving. created by Sally V - uploaded by Sally V - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Eye-catching walkers -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 16:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2019 at 08:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Sweden
Info WLM Sweden #4. Chapel at Garpenberg mines in Dalarna County, Sweden. Built in the 17th century and the only remaining mine chapel in Sweden. Garpenberg is Sweden's oldest mining area still in operation. Ore has been mined here since the Middle Ages. We have a one FP but this photo is very different. Created and uploaded by Calle Eklund. Nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good, but it looks like it might be somewhat oversharpened to me, certainly when compared with the other FP by you. Cmao20 (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blown sky on the left rather catches the eye, with industrial buildings below; the right hand side is nicer. Looks a bit over-processed. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why the ground is purple?! when I compare it with its another image the building color is significantly different and very unpleasant! -- Editor-1 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, doesn't look overprocessed for my tastes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition and mood - Benh (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dunno, I feel like the colors are exaggerated. I can't be sure, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination As uploader. I'll see if I can make a better version. Vivo (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Merri Church Interior 3, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 21:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The altar of Saint Merri Church, Paris, France, a parish church on the Rue Saint Martin built in the Gothic style between 1500 and 1550. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. -- Colin (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 06:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kalksteenrots met in het midden een breccie. 10-09-2019. (actm.) 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2019 at 16:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural #Switserland. Natural phenomena?
Info Limestone rock with a beautiful one in the middle breccia (limestone pieces sticked together). The grooves in the rock were created by limestone solution. This phenomenon is called "karst". The grooves are called karts and is a rare habitat. See note on the photo.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me.--Peulle (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. May be useful, but nothing inspiring to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others: I can see this as being a QI (and probably a VI as well if someone can come up with a good scope), but for FP … --El Grafo (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this is an interesting and useful photo but I incline to agree that it has no obvious wow. Cmao20 (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Lavin door Val Lavinuoz naar Alp dÍmmez (2025m.) 11-09-2019. (d.j.b) 20.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 05:30:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural #Switserland.
Info Mountain tour from Lavin through Val Lavinuoz to Alp d'Immez (2025m.) Long ago, a rock crashed from the unstable slope of Piz Linard. That the fall was long ago can be seen from the vegetation on and the weathering of the huge boulder.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice, but lacking wow factor. Is the rock famous or something?--Peulle (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This might be a nice spot but by no means an outstanding image of it. Overall noisy, poor detail at less than 12 megapixels, harsh contrast, no wow (at least for those who haven’t been there with you). --Kreuz schnabel 13:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, I see rocks every day like this. --Booth sift 23:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Changing the crop does not make it any less uninteresting--Booth sift 23:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brent goose.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2019 at 18:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order:Anatidae(ducks, geese and swans
Info created by Hobbyfotowiki - uploaded by Hobbyfotowiki - nominated by Hobbyfotowiki -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is actually good enough to feature, IMO, but the categorization is not. Please remember this is Commons; species ID and a good description are needed. I'll give you a couple of days to fix these things.--Peulle (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC
Info The photo, shows the small goose species "Branta bernicla", with it´s characteristical small white patch on either side of the neck, on the north sea island "Amrum", in action. In April they are very active because only a few days later, they leave their winter resting place. It is a joy to photograph their activities"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbyfotowiki (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

See my answer on your other nom. You are fairly new here but you need to start learning how to do the description and categories right. Also please remember to always sign your comments. --Cart (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cart: I fixed it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now.--Peulle (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lead room is missing. Too much space behind and not enough at the left, in my view. Also not very large resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are cases in that the lead room would give the wrong expression. The goose has no certain goal but it is fleeing. It wants to get away from maybe a danger, get out of sight (perhaps of the camera ;-) ) or out of reach. This is such a case. The rippling water behind it underlines the scene. --Hockei (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1, excellent example of "breaking the rules" with a purpose. Well, actually this "running out of the frame" composition with negative space behind the protagonist is a pretty common way of expressing urgency in comics and cartoons. And if that doesn't convince, have a look at the ISO 7010 emergency exit sign ;-) Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Hockei, who gives a very persuasive argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile--Ermell (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Hockei. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportHanooz 00:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Struggle with the low res but it is a good image and Hockei is convincing. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good action shot with the action captured in the right way. --Cart (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, the left crop is too tight Poc o² 18:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThank you for your comments. It is clear, I often "break the rules" and with my decision for sure I am moving away of a real featured pictures canidate. But for me to choose more place on the left is not a better choice. A few minutes ago I tried it out, but it really doesn´t work. I created (in my opinion) a quiet boring picture, completely forgetting the idea behind it. hobbyfotowikil (talk) , 22:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I like the photo but I really wish there were more lead room. Cmao20 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift 04:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Hockei --Llez (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lead room aside, it just doesn't feel special enough for me. Feels like a near miss for what could have been an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hi all negative voters. Would you say that this painting is a bad painting due to the non-existent but from you unconditional demanded lead room, wouldn'd you? In addition to my former statement, the goose seems to look back to the danger. So the lead room is not before but behind the goose. Please think about that. --Hockei (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ —kallerna (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Vote cancelled, no reason given. --Hockei (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]