Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2018
Image:Accipiter gentilis by Iosto Doneddu.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 01:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created by Iosto Doneddu - uploaded by Mike4aa - nominated by Juenti el toju -- Juenti el toju (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Juenti el toju (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Only 0.96 megapixels, way below the minimum of 2 megapixels. - PumpkinSky talk 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Angaria aculeata 01.JPG, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2018 at 15:59:39 (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) 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 18:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Exceptional clarity and detail and a beautiful shell. I think you're getting even better! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, from shell to shell more experience ;-) --Llez (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well executed. Charles (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 22:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Krigsgiljan at Loddebo.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 21:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
- Info c.u.n by me, -- cart-Talk 21:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 21:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Great texture PumpkinSky talk 02:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Impressive at full (huge) size -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Basile, you shoot the beaches and water where you live, and I do the same. The results are very different. :-) --cart-Talk 12:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting technique. And per PumpkinSky, great texture -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I wouldn't be sad if it's promoted (it will), but the very tight framing at the bottom ruins it a little to me. - Benh (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Benh, the reason there is so little water at the bottom, is because there is so little water. This photo is taken from a stone pier running along and outwards from the cliff (see the place on Google map). If I had gone wider at the bottom, it would have been bushes and grass on the left side (see this photo) and boats and jetties to the right (see this photo). I think that a clean waterline is better. Sometimes you have to give in to geography. --cart-Talk 22:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I may be missing something, but seems to me you could have gotten closer to the water. - Benh (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I could, but then the upward/outward angle would be too great to cover the whole cliff (it is high, steep and wide) in panorama without any serious distortion. Since I don't have a DSLR that I can fit with the perfect lens for each photo-op, I always have to weigh the pros and cons when I take pictures. Since the cliff itself was the main subject, I was more interested in getting it right than having more water. If this gets promoted, I'm sure someone with better equipment than mine can go to the cliff, make a perfect shot and then have my version delisted. I'm not trying to make you change your vote, I only explain the situation. --cart-Talk 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wasn't close to change my vote, but just a legitimate question right? ;) - Benh (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- And btw, I bet the distorsion wouldn't look bad on that "non geometric" kind of subject. - Benh (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not a very experienced panorama builder, so I prefer to play it safe for the time being. --cart-Talk 21:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support nice work.--Ermell (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I've been waiting a while to work my way up to this one. The LargeImage viewer wasn't on the ball, so I took a look at it on Flickr and it's as good as it looks at thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is also the 50% version here if you want to be absolutely sure. :) It's larger than Flickr but not too large. --cart-Talk 16:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Thanks; I checked again and it is working just fine ... delicious! Those cliffs remind me of a popular climbing spot in the Adirondacks (not that I climb; a little scrambling during a hike is enough for me). I can see some spots where I'm sure some climbers would like to set up a rope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing extra special. --Karelj (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Karelj. Yes high resolution, but the light is not that good. --A.Savin 05:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, per Karelij. Except the high resolution no eye-catcher for me. --Milseburg (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice but nothing extraordinary or special. I have seen a lot of such rocky mountains during my trips. -- Pofka (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support not only because of the resolution --Stepro (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 08:34:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United States
- Info created & uploaded by User:Professorcornbread - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - This is surely an unusual subject for an FP nominee. I leave it to your judgment on whether to promote it, but it surely is striking, in my opinion, and I think the partly cloudy skies suit the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent composition. Looks like a huge bird soaring the sky with it's silver wings.-- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Johann. Daniel Case (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great shot and composition. At first I wondered if the curves were natural or distortion but I found this, which seems to be the same scene but a different composition. PumpkinSky talk 12:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 22:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I like this symmetrical number -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 10:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Has nobody complained about the horrendous vertical perspective distortion!!! :-) I'd have preferred a clear blue sky for the abstract composition, and a little less dull grey. Btw, File:Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant - Eggs from Below.jpg is another photo he took of the site. -- Colin (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Question By distortion, do you mean something other than the normal foreshortening as it goes up? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Reminds me to File:4 Cilindros, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-11, DD 04.JPG Poco2 16:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very cool shot, giving almost anatomical associations. :D I do have a bit of an issue with the lack of info in the description, and hopefully we can get geocoding too. FPs should have good image pages. As for Colin's perspective objections, I don't see any problems; with a shot of this nature, the perspective is as it should be. --Peulle (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Goodness me, did nobody spot the smiley? Ikan, yes what we call "vertical perspective distortion" (when someone angles their camera up a bit) which causes converging verticals, is the same as standard depth converging parallels. In technical work, with a rectilinear perspective, we expect it only in the depth axis, not vertical or horizontal, as the viewer/camera view is supposed to be perpendicular to the subject and parallel to the ground. For this it is fine, of course. Btw, see Foreshortening, it isn't quite the same thing. -- Colin (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I saw the smiley but was still interested in your explanation. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't see it. Dang ... --Peulle (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2018 at 12:06:26 (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 Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I like this picture but will come back to it more before deciding. However, there is a dust spot some ways to the left of the steeple, and the sky is also a bit blotchy in places, so if you could smooth that out just a bit, it might improve things at the detailed level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your in-depth review. I improved details and fixed the mentioned issues according to your seggestions. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It's nice... but maybe missing little something special for FP? - Benh (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Still not perfect, but satisfying enough for me to consider it an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - PumpkinSky talk 11:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 14:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by [[User:Granada|]] -- Granada (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Granada (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support A fine shot all around.--Peulle (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Similar small DoF choice as the one below and this one doesn't appeal to me either. Charles (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I sort of get the DoF objection to the other one, but in this one the primary subject is front and center such that the composition is clearly about that person's performance rather than the background/setting. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The background is too distracting; even with the low DOF the subject isn't sufficiently isolated because of how colorful the background is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've made a tighter crop, is that better? File:20180128_FIS_CC_WC_15km_mass_start_Dario_Cologna_850_2344_01.jpg --Granada (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Support- Yep. This is an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Question Ikan, are you supporting the photo in the nom or the cropped version, which is a different file? --cart-Talk 10:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, only in that version, so I should cross out my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Background too distracting, hard to make out the skier. You could offer the cropped version as an "Alt" here on the nom. --cart-Talk 10:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- So could someone exchange the picture or remove this nomination so that I can nominate the other version? --Granada (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The best way is just to add that crop to this nomination. I have done that for you. All the previous voters should also be 'pinged' to be made aware of this. Like this: Peulle Charlesjsharp King of Hearts Daniel Case Ikan Kekek Rhododendrites Martin Falbisoner. --cart-Talk 13:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Alt version
edit- Support This cropped version. --cart-Talk 13:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose not FP for me either. Charles (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment DoF is not a question of choice in sports photography. This is shot at 200mm and even if I had closed the aperture to 22 the DoF of the image would not be more than 3m, leaving the second skier unsharp. Imagine I would have closed the aperture that far I would have had to raise the ISO to 12800 or higher cause in sports photography you can't just adjust your shutter speed, you need to stick with 1/1000th (or faster) of a second. There's a reason why sports photographers use lenses with f/2.8 throughout and only at f/2.8. Next time in that very same position I'll grab me a 400mm f/2.8 for still less DoF. Because we all know the truth: the second is the first loser and you can't depict this better as by blurring the rest of the bunch. --Granada (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Better, but still not featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support also fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel HalfGig talk 02:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld 850 1484.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 21:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Granada (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support We are so used to all the grand vistas with alps and mountains here, that it is actually quite refreshing to see them just as a bokeh backdrop to these crisp athletes. Nice! --cart-Talk 22:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support An excellent focus to most important part of the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition and very good artistic pictureLmbuga (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. JukoFF (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I was set to oppose but I looked at it at full size. Detail on the skiers makes up for the distracting background. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition, and I nice that the subjects stand apart like that (though I can agree a little bit with Daniel) - Benh (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very nice composition! Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I can not handle the composition. The focus of the camera is on the athletes. Very good. But to me the blurred mountains are too dominant in the image. --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Milseburg. The eyes instantly go to the mountains which are very blurry and the skiiers seem to be an afterthought. PumpkinSky talk 12:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the blurred mountains don't work for me. Charles (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Out of focus mountains does not work for me. -- Pofka (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I thought about this for a while and held off my vote, but Milseburg summarized my feelings very well. It's good quality, but the out-of-focus mountains just take up too much attention. I guess maybe a higher DoF could be the answer, but I'm not sure that's possible.--Peulle (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I understand the objections but for me this composition works. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per cart - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion without the out-of-focus-mountains this pic would be boring. For me the composition is the value of this image. --Stepro (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per all the others. HalfGig talk 02:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)-- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)- Oppose per Milseburg.--Ermell (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
File:Blond and green rice fields.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 01:54:19 (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) 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Everything well balanced, great composition and motive. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Johann --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I keep wanting to turn the camera to the right to get a more 50/50 view and the rather prominent palm tree not so close to the edge. --cart-Talk 11:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- The other version I have is without that palm tree. So, I can't provide a larger crop unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this crop. Like Cart I think it would be better centred. I've suggested a crop that is more balanced, though the path still isn't quite in the middle.-- Colin (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)- Support now. -- Colin (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The cropped sheaf (oh God, I didn't even think about the paronomasic dimensions of that one until after I typed it, so no smiley) at the bottom is distracting, as is the tree blocking the cloud.Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't get the smiley, but I suppose a pun for native English-speakers ? So, if I understand well the opposition here, that's because a cloud is hidden behind a tree ? Since the sheaf has now been removed with the crop. @Daniel Case: Or is there any other reason ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support now. The tree in front of the cloud isn't so bad now without the sheaf (yes, "crop" has a double meaning here, especially with a sheaf showing). Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Would support the cropped version. — Rhododendrites talk | 21:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. The cropped version is better; I might support it but won't support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Much more satisfying. You could add back the rest of the tree on the left, but this is good enough for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Ok now. --cart-Talk 10:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support works for me now. I wish the line were right in the middle, but I see that that would make for a harsher crop. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Young boy driving a motorized pirogue.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2018 at 07:07:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Looking at the boat, the quality isn't high enough IMO.--Peulle (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is a QI, but the DoF is short, due to the long focal length (371 mm) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough of it sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 20:01:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Pretty compelling facial expression. It almost looks like he's smoking. Why do you suppose he has that in his mouth? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- * I chose this one as it looks like a toothpick, but in fact if you look closely it's a bit of stick stuck to his upper lip! Charles (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support It looks to me like he's trying to quit smoking ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support A good portrait of the detective in the first crime novel featuring only primates. --cart-Talk 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice expression --The Photographer 21:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Stepro (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Support unique and excellent HalfGig talk 02:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)-- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Princes Road Synagogue Nave.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2018 at 20:38:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created & uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Benh (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Top left of arches are washed out and red carpet upper areas washed out. PumpkinSky talk 01:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Not quite up to Diliff quality, but it gets over the bar for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support also per Daniel --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Lights a little bit overexposed. Before building the HDRI the lights should be reduced at the lower exposed photographs. --XRay talk 07:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very good. Voltmetro 17:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support, on balance, though I think the criticisms are apt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Deserves a better processing (contrast should be increased and lights are somewhat bright) but all in all it's an impressive picture of high educational value. --Code (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Huayluang waterfall 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2018 at 20:40:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose -- overprocessed. unnatural looking. PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too unsharp, maybe not a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice motif, but the quality doesn't look like an FP to me.--Peulle (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose While it doesn't look overprocessed, just unsharp, my main problem with it is the composition. The admittedly beautiful waterfall is almost lost in a sea of green. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per all of the above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, per Basile --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support intriguing composition Albertus teolog (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. -- Pofka (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Atienza, Guadalajara, España, 2017-05-23, DD 25.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2018 at 20:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info View of the village of Atienza (437 inhabitants, according to the 2006 census), province of Guadalajara, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. Over the village, standing high on a rock, reigns its castle. It's located on the site of earlier Roman and Visigoth fortifications and frequently changed hands between the Muslims and the Christians between the 9th and 11th centuries. Poco2 20:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 20:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Flaaaat light, almost warming me up. - Benh (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I do wish the light could be better too, but as it is this is an adequate treatment of the subject for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know if it's some form of heat blur or what, but the houses don't look sharp enough for me.--Peulle (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other opponents, nothing special, just good quality image. --Karelj (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Interesting motif and well lit. --Milseburg (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Light is definitely not the best. Also, that gray concrete building/garage absolutely does not fit with the brown old town. -- Pofka (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2018 at 07:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 07:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 07:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Lovely lighting. PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support The shadow on the left is distracting, but doesn't completely undo the effect of the symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Good picture, but the reflection of the window on the face of St. Mary is disturbing me --Llez (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose crop on the tree. Charles (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose +1. Cropped tree. Without that it would be definitely nice. -- Pofka (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
* Support HalfGig talk 02:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Info Sorry, post-closing detected invalid vote per this discussion. Outcome will be altered to not featured. --cart-Talk 15:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Llez and Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2018 at 07:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support May be the sky is a little bit oversharpened. --XRay talk 07:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done Noise corrected. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support And seven --Llez (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support OK. It is a pity that there are no people (children) in the photo. Where did they go?--Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fishing, or playing with some buffalos :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2018 at 19:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
- Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very hard to resist. --cart-Talk 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Another one in the category of "psychiatrists' office waiting room wall" images. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 06:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Caspar David Friedrich and William Turner would approve ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support At first I thought this was too dark but it has grown on me ;-) PumpkinSky talk 02:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, PumpkinSky. Yes, you're right, the trees are a bit dark. The problem was the contrast with the bright light (and the shot was almost against the sun). The other thing is that these are mainly holm oaks which have quite dark green (evergreen) leaves. Further, their waxy layer reflects the sun light as you can see on the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Restaurant Beffroi Steak House.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2018 at 19:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info All by -- The Photographer 19:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Even allowing for the posterization of the red areas as an inevitable consequence of the long exposure, this is still a rather busy composition for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Busy composition for FP. --Gnosis (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gnosis --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support Giving it some hope. These red squares looks playful and balances all these lights chaos a bit. -- Pofka (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Stockholm - Stockholms stadshus1.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2018 at 21:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Sweden
- Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose A view I grew up with so I know how hard it is to photograph this building and not making it look like a postcard. However, having most of the building in hard shadow is not a good idea. The cut modern building on the right side doesn't help. The colors look too blue and also a bit washed out. Sorry. --cart-Talk 21:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The structure on the shadow side is fine and visible. I don't see washed out areas on this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wladyslaw, you cannot have a conversation with another user about what colours you and they see unless you actually offer an image that defines what colours it contains. This image lacks an embedded colour profile. So what other people see is random and your fault, not theirs. My guess is the lack of saturation here is the harsh light, but it might possibly also be if you are using your monitor in wide-gamut mode, haven't calibrated it properly with the O/S and the software you use you view images, and are simply enjoying the oversaturated unrealistic colours that result. -- Colin (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose But it should be photographed in the morning to avoid the shadow. Charles (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Unpleasant lighting. Everything looks washed-out. -- Pofka (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Image:Wryneck by Pepe Reigada.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 00:37:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created by pepe reigada - uploaded by Mike4aa - nominated by Juenti el toju -- Juenti el toju (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Juenti el toju (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
OpposeIt's a very small file for FPand strange composition with the bird so high.Charles (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)- Request Is it possible to upload a larger resolution of this file ? This 2400x1600 pixels picture seems downsized. It is very nice and sharp enough, but not that big unfortunately, and a lot of space is lost on the left. Then I would suggest a square crop in a bigger size if possible -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I just realize that it comes from flickr,
then forget this request Neutral-- Basile Morin (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC) - Puedo ampliar el espacio por encima de la imagen para que el ave quede más centrada, pero no puedo apmliar el tamaño del ave. Si lo véis pertinente, también puedo subir una versión más cuadrada. --Juenti el toju (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Acabo de subir una versión cuadrada. Espero que esta guste más.--Juenti el toju (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support now -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I just realize that it comes from flickr,
- Neutral I like it but for the bluish haloing around the wood. If this can be fixed ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- No se cómo quitar el halo azulado de alrededor de la madera. Si alguien sabe...--Juenti el toju (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Acabo de quitar el halo azul de la imagen.--Juenti el toju (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Love it :) - Benh (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Ahora, esto es bueno. --cart-Talk 20:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I like this a lot. Parece una escultura. — Rhododendrites talk | 00:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Stepro (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Toronto August 2017 04.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 09:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info Downtown Toronto with the old city hall and the Toronto financial district in the background and Yonge street and Toronto Eaton Centre in the foreground. View from an 31th floor apartment in the Pantages Tower. I used a extreme Wide-Angle Lens (12 mm) in order to get the foreground. The image was taken through a small, only partially openable window with the camera pressed against the window frame.
- Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Question - I like the photo, but why do the buildings in the lower distance immediately to the right of the crane look distorted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Could you add a note please? I am not sure if i understand where you see the distortion.--ArildV (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. The building has a irregular facade but I don't see the distortion. Here is the same view in daylight.--ArildV (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I see. Well, the structure of that building is not understandable in the night picture. But it's such a small imperfection in a very good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 09:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Lovely nightview. --XRay talk 12:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Viereth Kraftwerk 17RM4247.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 08:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
- Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice angle and good color, enough to make me not so disappointed that a picture with "Kraftwerk" in the filename doesn't show four guys in varying stages of baldness lit from below in dry-ice fog standing in front of computer terminals/synth keyboards they are intently looking at Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I was thinking "common" but it catches my eyes everytime I scroll down the page and I think it's because of the good framing and nice double "vanishing points". The light is good as well, with the right amount of shadow in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 12:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Zámek Buchlovice (Buchlowitz) 2.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 14:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks nice, but for me, the sharpness isn't good enough for FP. There's also a perspective issue.--Peulle (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose not centered - Benh (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Peulle; also the WB seems a little too warm. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Cropped fragments on the side roofs ruins this nomination completely for me. -- Pofka (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Pobednik monument, Kalemegdan, Belgrade.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 20:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created by Janosguljas - uploaded by Janosguljas - nominated by -- Mile (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The monument is tilt --The Photographer 20:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I will leave as it is, since isnt mine shot. But interesting to see skycraper on left if rotating. Something wont be straight. --Mile (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- IMHO it look like a DoF effect, take a look and compare the buildings more close to the sculture --The Photographer 20:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The skyscraper is tilted as well. dllu (t,c) 05:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The possible tilt, plus the sky just seems a little washed-out even considering the sun being just off-frame. It might work with a different angle. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File:20160526 Fotoprojekt Oesterreichischer Film Michael Hudecek IMG 5682 LR10 by Stepro.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 06:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Stepro -- Stepro (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Stepro (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know ... it's deservedly a QI but it just doesn't have that something extra for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel.--Ermell (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose His smile looks too fake. -- Pofka (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 08:40:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Spain
- Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Talk about living architecture! This weird house looks like it's about to go up and away and maybe take you with it! If the glare really bothers you all, I would think Diego would be willing to work on that, but I think this motif and this view are just too weirdly compelling not to merit a feature. If the architect's name is known, it would be good to add that to the file description, because this building is presumably unique. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great! Like from a fairy tale. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Indeed, looks like in that small village there is a Gaudi fan. Thanks for the nom! Poco2 08:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And yes, Johann, indeed like a character from a fairy tale. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support I don't like the sky and find the building rather unsharp. Though the subject is great -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- That looks like an oppose argument. Did you mean to oppose? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- The subject is really awesome, that makes me support. But it's a weak one (now specified). I also wonder if it's possible to do something with the sky to improve it -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great subject outweighs rather ordinary photo. It isn't that sharp at 100% but downsizing from 32MP to 14MP (66%) is plenty sharp. Shame about the fence. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition contaminated with many distracting elements such as grass without cutting to the front, fence, cable back. Also focus problem fixed using a bad practice
of downsizing and oversharpening--The Photographer 21:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)- I can accept all kind of criticism but please, @The Photographer: don't accuse me of bad practices when it isn't true. The file has not been downsized. I've just cropped some area on the left which wasn't interesting. --Poco2 21:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well crop a picture after and not take simply the right angle is a bad practice on non animated objects like buildings. Sorry for the accuse, I forgot add *maybe --The Photographer 22:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Monarch butterfly (70387).jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 20:38:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info all by me — Rhododendrites talk | 20:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 20:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Detail of dark areas of the head are not good IMO Lmbuga (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose There is very little definition around the head or wings. Charles (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Good to my eyes, and I like the light at the upper right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Stepro (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 17:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- InfoThere are around 3000 of these goats in the wild. They are endemic to a part of the Western Ghats in Kerala, India. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 04:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Head cut composition looks and not enough space to the right --The Photographer 21:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As you can see from the original upload, not a problem to add more space to the right if that is the consensus. Charles (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I preffer the original version and thanks for upload it to commons too. --The Photographer 14:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Crop is OK for me --Llez (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Llez. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
OpposeNo wow to me. It's not tack sharp at 100%, the blurred background is a bit bright and has too many of the same colors as the goat's head itself (some of the brown tones) so it lacks separation. --Granada (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)- Granada Wrt "tack sharp at 100%", this is not an FP requirement. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping. Reviewers who argue for this just encourage nominators to downsize in order to make it sharper at 100%. This image is not downsized and was taken at 420mm on a APS-C camera (670mm full-frame equivalent) with a 100-400mm + 1.4x converter lens combination that cost £2200. I think this is as sharp as we can be reasonable to expect. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 14:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 16:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support Great clouds and colors. Only issue is the boat and water are in shadow; maybe cropping a bit of the bottom would help? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Great light, but the boat is just too far away and too centered to have the silhouette of it make an addition to the image. If it had been closer to the camera and to the right side, it would have made a good diagonal line
and the photo could also have been cut at 16:9 to get more flow in it since the bottom part of the water looks rather stagnant.--cart-Talk 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC) - @PumpkinSky: , @King of Hearts: , @W.carter: I changed the crop to a 16:9 format, cutting a bit of the water. Wish it's better now for you also. If not I can go back to the previous version (or you can strike). Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I find this a beautiful composition. I really appreciate your sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Ikan ! I feel very lucky if I can share some emotions -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small silhouette and never a fan of the subject in the shade. - Benh (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- This silhouette is not my main subject. Even if it is there in the middle, it is only an element of the composition. Better with than without, but not essential IMO. Though I totally respect different feelings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per others. --Milseburg (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose not a fan of the composition nor of the light/shadow Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination No consensus -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2018 at 03:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms
- Info created and uploaded by BernbaumJG, nominated by Rhododendrites — Rhododendrites talk | 03:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Info "Colorized scanning electron micrograph of Ebola virus particles (green) found both as extracellular particles and budding particles from a chronically-infected African Green Monkey Kidney cell (blue); 20,000x magnification." Uploaded as part of the Wiki Science Competition. One of the finalists in its category and jury award winner in the United States branch of the competition. — Rhododendrites talk | 03:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 03:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Seeing as it is an SEM image, I can accept it as is. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, but can we rename the filename to something more useful? dllu (t,c) 05:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I don't like downloading TIFs to view them at full size, but in this case, I was fascinated enough to do so. Beautiful and of high educational value. I agree that the filename should be changed to something more specific. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Info In case you didn't know, you can view it at full size without downloading the TIFF by going to the full size JPEG preview. It will have some extra JPEG artifacts, but it is much more convenient (especially for people with slow internet connection). dllu (t,c) 02:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've changed the filename --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 11:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support for what it is - but since the image is only 3,604 × 3,518 I'm not sure why it couldn't be uploaded as a high quality PNG ... --Peulle (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support HEV Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:BajorelievemonumentoSanMartin-MDP.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2018 at 20:16:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info all by me Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, for me not sharp enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have to agree with Michiel. This is a great motif, but looking at this photo gives me a bit of a headache. I'd love to see a sharper picture of this, possibly in warmer light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination thanks!!!!--Ezarateesteban 12:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Esteghlal–Sepahan rivalry.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2018 at 16:45:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Ali Khodaei - uploaded by Maometto97 - nominated by Vathlu -- Vathlu (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Vathlu (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: At only 0.39Mpx the image is far below the 2Mpx minimum for FPC nominations.--cart-Talk 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2018 at 04:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Cygnus
- Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose not sure what is special here. Annoying branches. - Benh (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your honesty, Benh. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Canal du Midi, Vias 2018 (05).jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 09:46:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
- Info created by - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful scenario. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 10:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice wild winter composition without snow an ice --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 12:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I wasn't sure about this photo when I saw the thumbnail, but at full screen, it's an excellent composition, and at full size, I really see details like the warm light on the left sides of the tree trunks. Really good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan, it does sort of grow on you ... the winter take on a dreamy summer scene. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, this illustrate well that in photography, the light (often linked to the sun hour) is more important than the season and sometimes also as much as important than weather. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many grass making up for a messy composition to me. - Benh (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Benh. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent composition. --Gnosis (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 06:17:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
- Info createdand uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 06:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 06:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Stepro (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support One of those images you don't expect to work, but it does. Nice rustic feel to it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Hanstholm - Danmark.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2018 at 11:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
- Info created and uploaded by LG Nyqvist - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 11:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support If one way of looking at FPs is that you should enjoy hanging it on your wall, then this image has all the elements and light of a Skagen marine painting. Except, it's from Thisted and it's not a painting. -- cart-Talk 11:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 11:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support impressive! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support As a matter of fact... I have it on my livingroom wall printed on canvas 120*80 cm--LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - So dramatic! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--ArildV (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very painterly. Winslow Homer first came to mind. Perhaps it just needs a woman with a basket or a man in a farmer's hat. :) Or add some fog and a little boat and it's Ivan Aivazovsky. This will clearly pass either way, but I feel like the buoy in the background is a little distracting and wonder what it would look like cloned out. If it were off to the side, or if it were a boat or some other structure, that would be one thing, but it's just this sort of nub standing up straight in the background. Regardless, nice work. — Rhododendrites talk | 21:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Rhod, that is not a buoy, but a fixed structure at the end of the pier. From what I can see, it is either a beacon/navigation mark alerting boats that there is a pier, or a box for collecting weather data. For anyone used to being on a boat, such marks are crucial and very attractive. It is visible in every photo of the pier I can find and I don't think we should remove fixed landmarks like that. --cart-Talk 22:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, having looked a bit closer at the photo of the harbor I linked to above, I can see that it is probably part of a Leading lights system. It corresponds with a large white disc further inland above the pier and houses, to guide boats to the harbor. --cart-Talk 22:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Aha. Landlubber I be. :) I still wouldn't mind it being removed, nonetheless, but I can appreciate why one wouldn't want to. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong support One of those images I was hoping wouldn't have any serious technical shortcomings at full size ... and it didn't"! How romantic! Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Not a big effort to denoise the sky which I find disturbing and the dust spots on the left are disturbing too.--Ermell (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Info Have taken away a couple of saltwater spots and perhaps noise. LG Nyqvist (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support very good now.--Ermell (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 16:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. --Yann (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great picture. Like a painting, as already said above. --Code (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Öresundsbron October 2017 02.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 10:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
- Info The Öresund bridge seen from Malmö, Sweden. The bridge is the longest combined road and rail bridge in Europe and connects two major metropolitan areas: Copenhagen, the Danish capital city, and the Swedish city of Malmö. The bridge was the setting for the Swedish/Danish TV crime drama The Bridge.
- Created, uploaded and nominated by ArildV -- ArildV (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 10:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Same gloomy feeling as the TV series. --cart-Talk 11:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The sky is wonderful but for me the composition is a mess. The concrete pier (?) on the right obscures much of the bridge. If only you had got higher up, or on that pier. The various lights are a bit random. I can't see where the bridge reaches the other side. The bridge itself is, ironically, so tiny that the train crossing it is just a line of brighter pixels. If you had had a telephoto to capture the suspension section with the great sky, that might have been better. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I understand you view Colin, but I like to have something more when just water in front of the bridge here. The bridge never reaches the Danish side, it only reaches a artificial island, the island is a crossover point between the bridge and the tunnel. The photo is not about the train, it is just a images note for information. I believe the red light trail is from Copenhagen airport. Regards--ArildV (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I know it isn't about the train, just pointing out how small the bridge is in the frame. Btw, that air photo you linked to, it would be wonderful to have a high-quality version of it. -- Colin (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I understand you view Colin, but I like to have something more when just water in front of the bridge here. The bridge never reaches the Danish side, it only reaches a artificial island, the island is a crossover point between the bridge and the tunnel. The photo is not about the train, it is just a images note for information. I believe the red light trail is from Copenhagen airport. Regards--ArildV (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - To me, this composition is beautiful. The train is only a small detail of the composition in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per cart; it's all about the mood. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Mostly per Colin. And a tad dark in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support no problem for me with the pier, technical good, motive is very interessting and harmonic --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Stepro (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support Sky absorbs that bridge too much and it is quite poorly visible, especially in low resolution. Although, I think it is nice enough to be FP. -- Pofka (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Clumsy wagon, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 06:59:19 (UTC)
-
Version with hands.
-
Version without hands.
- Info all by -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m
- Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Interesting. --Mile (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of the "Matemateca credit" thing at the end. I think the file page is enough for that. Do we tag our names on the photos themselves that we upload here? - Benh (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Also wish there's an english translation of the article which explains the problem. - Benh (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I would support the very nice Version without hands if a new upload was nominated without the final self-promotion signature -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as a set. The first video is a bit amateurish and gets a bit boring to watch. The second is better. However, the video has a soundtrack for which it appears three names deserve credit. Is that soundtrack on the same licence terms? The attribution at the end of the video, and on the file description page, absolutely must list all parties who created this whole work, audio and video and presentation, not just who set up the camera. Also who is the person who moved the block? -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Since we're judging videos under the same guidelines as images, I take issue with the text included. Per the Guidelines, there should be: "No advertisements, signatures, or other watermarks in image. Copyright/authorship information of all images should be located on the image's description page and should not interfere with content of the image." --Peulle (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Peulle, Benh, is this not a photo. Credits at the end of a video are standard practice and a way of giving credit/attribution/licence information appropriate to the medium. Other FPs with credits include File:La Piragua.ogv, File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv, File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogv to pick a few. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Disregarding the fact that I am of the opinion that the first two of those videos are so poor in quality that they should be delisted, Question by which guidelines should we judge videos if not by the image guidelines? --Peulle (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- So? Watermarks are a standard practice too (albeit a slighty more distractive one). I'm just annoyed that I'm forced to watch the ending credits. Again, the file page seems enough to me. - Benh (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Watermarks aren't really standard practice on professional work. Amateurs with an inflated view of the value of their work, yes. Video and film credits are absolutely standard. However, the internet is changing that. If this was on Youtube, you'd have to watch five minutes of the guy thanking you and welcoming you to his channel and telling you what he's going to do today, and then at the end, five minutes of him telling you how to subscribe to his channel to watch more awesome videos like this. -- Colin (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
-
- Benh obligated? The video already ended, you can simply close, a watermark you are obligated to see, do not makes any sense our affirmation. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would have to be very skilled to close the window before seeing the promotion upon a first view... Or I was bored before reaching the end. - Benh (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Disregarding the fact that I am of the opinion that the first two of those videos are so poor in quality that they should be delisted, Question by which guidelines should we judge videos if not by the image guidelines? --Peulle (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Peulle, Benh, is this not a photo. Credits at the end of a video are standard practice and a way of giving credit/attribution/licence information appropriate to the medium. Other FPs with credits include File:La Piragua.ogv, File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv, File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogv to pick a few. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- One more example of why is this community is outdated
- First @Benh and Peulle: this is not a photo. Different from a photo, the ending do not corrupt the massage, and didn't take the attention of the main content, also do not difficult editions. All reasons to not "tag" a photo here, I didn't put a watermark at the corners, the equivalent of "tag" a photo here. So you should understand the rule, before apply it.
- Benh the solution to the problem is the same size of some Wikipedia articles. I didn't have workforce or time to do it yet. And this is an addition, as a link for a Wikipedia article in other files.
- I'm sorry, but in itself, that video isn't very self explanatory. The english caption should give us enough clue to understand why the wagon moves following that pattern. This is even more frustrating because the problem is actually interesting to me. - Benh (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Peulle we should already created specific guidelines for it, it's already 2018 and we can't have videos VI, QI almost always videos take longer to be evaluated, and most of the time none gives a single opinion and expire. Is more than time to do it.
- Colin if you google it, you will find this, the CC-by only asks for the by, not for a list of whole crew. And I'm here since 2006, former OTRS volunteer, and giving workshops about free license since 2008, I can guarantee you that all credit was given. Just to you calm down, the mix is based in another cc-by [1].
- And I didn't "just who set up the camera", for the second video I took the ~1000 photos to create it, I did all light set up, all the direction, edited the audio (modifying the music to fit), edited all the video... sorry, but who moves the blocks is not a copyright information needed. When a script was necessary I gave the credit: File:Aritmética das engrenagens.webm
- For the boring part:
- "Not interesting in my opinion, sorry. My reaction is "So what? A wooden model bus is jerkily traveling back and forth along a curvy line for no apparent reason."
- "While the video has obviously taken a great deal of time and effort to make and it is fun to watch that little woody thing finding its way along the track (and it is technically well done since I first thought the wood-thing had some electrical connection to the "rail" in the same way an electric train runs)"
- That's the why I created this set, and uploaded this videos. To those that couldn't understand that had a person manipulating it. That's why we have the "boring video"
- @Benh, Peulle, Basile Morin, and Peulle: this is not a "self promotion", we are creating content for the Humankind, and most of times this media runs without given credited, as I already said, this do not disturb the content, so nothing that you are saying fits for videos. And this is an evaluation of set, because the community completed about a version without the hands. Furthermore, this is a partnership, so given 2s to the partner at the end of the video, after they open theirs doors for the Wikimedia Movement, is not much.
- So, yeah, we are in 2008.
- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I am not against creating specific criteria for judging videos or other media, but currently we have only the existing guidelines to go by. My vote therefore stands.--Peulle (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely a VI, but per Colin the first one, like any single-take video, gets really boring really quickly. Secondly, while your explanation of the music credits is welcome, I would like to see it explicitly stated on the file description page that the music is CC-BY-SA as well (Separate music credits are yet another major impediment to people making their own videos for our projects, and we need to have examples of how to do it right IMO). Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
-
- Daniel Case this is not a VI, because people in VI do not accept videos. Simple as that.-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Rodrigo.Argenton: One day they will. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Daniel Case this is not a VI, because people in VI do not accept videos. Simple as that.-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion about license
|
---|
|
- Oppose I could see supporting the second on its own, modified, but I agree that the text at the end is problematic for FPC. Ultimately, the text does not itself add any educational value to the video, and thus if I were to add it to a Wikipedia article, I would likely edit it myself to remove that text beforehand. So I have to ask myself, which one would be the better FP -- the one that maximizes the educational content of the video, or the one that has text that doesn't add educational value. I would also probably even remove the music, which doesn't seem necessary (that is not to say that there isn't any possible musical accompaniment -- just that I don't know what it would be). To be clear, though, since I know a series of opposes can give the idea that people don't value the content, it is definitely a good, valuable contribution and I hope to support a version of it in the future. — Rhododendrites talk | 21:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @Rodrigo.Argenton: Take a breath and calm down. And notice I didn't oppose because of the credits. Which still feels too self promotion to me, whatever the rules. - Benh (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Benh well, so why are your opposition? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Boring to me. I cut off both videos in the middle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Hippopotamus in the Zambezi.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2018 at 21:22:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Bgag (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support My, grandma, what big teeth you have! S/He looks like they just can't take it anymore ... but of course they could just be yawning. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Great photo and memorable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 01:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Great shot. Could you reduce over-exposed highlights on hippo's mouth. Charles (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent!! --The Photographer 02:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! --Gnosis (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2018 at 02:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Canada Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Magnoliales
- Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 02:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- dllu (t,c) 02:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- top crop a little tight though. PumpkinSky talk 03:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition too
thingtight --The Photographer 21:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what "composition too thing" means. dllu (t,c) 21:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- This means adjusted, that is, there is not enough space in the composition around of the trees, for example, on tree top is almost on picture edge without a blue sky (without space). This gives a suffocation feeling. Remember that it's only MHO --The Photographer 20:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment If I may, I think this is just a spelling mistake and The Photographer means "composition too tight". --cart-Talk 11:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Neptuul (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Boring composition. -- -donald- (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Boring, ordinary composition, poor lighting on houses and very distracting dark shadows on the road. Not a FP for me. -- Pofka (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Oberburgau, panorama vanaf tussen Pichlauhof en Marienau met de Mondsee op de voorgrond foto62017-08-12 15.46.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 21:35:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
- Info all by --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Great mood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Perfectly captures that day on summer vacation when you have to stay inside and look longingly out at the water ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. I feel like on a holiday. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. This kind of weather is so common in Scotland, I'm not really getting any "perfectly captures the mood" vibe. The composition is just a bit random and elements rather small in the frame. Dull light and clouds obscuring the top of hills don't get an automatic FP from me. [And Daniel, I've had plenty holidays where you look at this in the morning and think "It's not raining so heavily that I can actually see the other side of the bay.. Lets put our waterproofs on (look... they're nearly dry), go out walking, and hope it clears up later! On my last holiday in Sky, it rained every single day.]" -- Colin (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Colin: The difference between this sort of vacation in England and New England, I guess . Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Good mood. If you can feel the cold dampness and smell the rain in a photo, the photographer has succeeded. --cart-Talk 10:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- None of those examples gives me the same feeling as this photo, they just look dark and gloomy. There is something special about this image that is tantalizing. It has to do with the soft steely light on the water, the way the cloud comes in over the hill, the shadows in the little bay and the lonelyness of the small boats. The bay is also framed very beautifully by the reeds, it has the same composition as an old Japanese wood print. It all comes together in this photo and that gives it a wow for me. Getting a feeling across is not just about photographing some dark clouds, it has everything to do with what subject or landscape they relate to. --cart-Talk 12:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The light is not FP material for me.--Peulle (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special to feature here, just a quality image --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Jurassic world. These clouds above the mountain has that scary emotion in them. I like it. -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 10:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The cliff is too dark for FP. --Yann (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Carpet Bazaar of Tabriz.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2018 at 17:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info created by Vathlu - uploaded by Vathlu - nominated by Vathlu -- Vathlu (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Vathlu (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, not sharp, CAs and noisy --Llez (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Liez, also the composition with dark figures in the foreground and lights in the back is not optimal. Sorry. --cart-Talk 21:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose also per Liez, not sharp enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have to agree with the others. This is a good slice-of-life document but not a great picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the problems outlined in the comments above.--Peulle (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment Ouch!--Vathlu (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Bullfighter in the Plaza de toros de la Real Maestranza de Caballería in Seville.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2018 at 08:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Ввласенко}}|]] -- Ввласенко (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The bull fighter is sharp, but unfortunately the bull is too unsharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Michielverbeek.--Peulle (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The bull is not a
heromain subject of the photo. -- Ввласенко (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The bull is not a
- I understand that you don't speak English so well, so please take this as a very friendly advice. It is not good to call a bullfighter "hero" since there are a lot of places where bullfights are considered cruel to animals and bullfighters not heroic at all. In a photo composition it is better to call him "the main subject". --cart-Talk 18:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you -- Ввласенко (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I blame Google Translate, which seems to have interpreted "main subject" in the literary sense, as "protagonist", i.e. hero. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Aha, our fearless investigative reporter makes sense of it all. :) --cart-Talk 21:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I blame Google Translate, which seems to have interpreted "main subject" in the literary sense, as "protagonist", i.e. hero. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that you don't speak English so well, so please take this as a very friendly advice. It is not good to call a bullfighter "hero" since there are a lot of places where bullfights are considered cruel to animals and bullfighters not heroic at all. In a photo composition it is better to call him "the main subject". --cart-Talk 18:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really the most dynamic pose possible. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I appreciate that this is a very notable subject, and thus could see featuring a particularly excellent image thereof, but I think it would take quite a lot in terms of technical quality, composition, etc. for me to support featuring such a depiction of (and/or celebration of) violence. — Rhododendrites talk | 05:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I thank everyone who paid attention to the photo. --Ввласенко (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:August. Ukraine.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2018 at 08:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
- Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Ввласенко}}|]] -- Ввласенко (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The light is good and the framing seems right, but I find myself wondering: why isn't it full size? --Peulle (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment For me, the composition is more important than size. -- Ввласенко (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- That may well be, but here we follow the image guidelines for QIC and FPC: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.". Please upload the original version of the file. --cart-Talk 17:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Original file August. Ukraine = File:DSC 0144 0 August. Ukraine.jpg --Ввласенко (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The clouds look a little too white for ISO 200, perhaps a result of the downsizing. And that issue notwithstanding, this just doesn't stand out enough from the many other pictures we have of clouds reflected on water for me to say "FP". Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I thank everyone who paid attention to the photo. --Ввласенко (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Манастир Моштаница-капела за паљење свећа (Moštanica Monastery, chapel for lighting candles).jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2018 at 11:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others 2
- Info Moštanica Monastery, chapel for lighting candles. My shot. --Mile (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose If only that center candle had been sharp ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Lots of empty space, not an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Very stylish, but per Daniel I'd like all three candles to be sharp. I remember seeing this earlier last year, thinking "What a shame, so lovely otherwise.". --cart-Talk 19:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Fine with me. Not sure what having the middle one sharp would bring. - Benh (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Benh --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice composition, but not enough depth.--Peulle (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support love this composition as it is --Stepro (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great background that gives perfect contrast to these bright yellow candles. It looks like it was taken in a mysterious dungeon full of vampires. =D The unsharp middle candle is not an immediate problem because it fits quite well with the composition as this is not animals/flowers close-up picture. -- Pofka (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 10:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very good. --Yann (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Eksjö - Kirche.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2018 at 20:58:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Sweden
- Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Need verticals fix --The Photographer 21:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I had already, but uploaded the wrong version. Now the correction version. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Looks dark and underexposed to me. Fixable? --cart-Talk 21:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Everything is fixable, but this image is definitly not underexposed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Even looking at the histogram, there is practically no white in the image and this is not a grey church. Also the distortion of the tower is too great. Sorry. --cart-Talk 10:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- W.carter: Then I recommend you strictly to learn reading histograms correctly. The curve of over- or underexposed images go to the borders. Well balanced histograms are placed away from the borders. And so it is here. This image is definitly NOT underexposed.Nevertheless I have brightend the curve a bit. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I know how to read histograms and IMO this is a little too far from the right, but thank you for taking your time to educate me further. --cart-Talk 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Don't spread fake news around. W.Carter has it right. White churches under bright daylight definitely don't show that kind of centered histogram, but shall have a peak on the right because... well there's lot of well lit white. When you go skiing, you overexpose. Use your metering correctly, and don't follow rules blindly. - Benh (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- The histograms of underexposed images appears shifted to the left. This histogram has not this behaviour. This is not fake, but fact. Did you accuse me to fake the histogram? Everybody can open the image and test this by himself and open the histogram. Very white buildings in very lucent sunny weather conditions I shift carefuly to a darker curve because eroded white parts is also not very considerable. This shifting I may do too strong therefore I have reduced it right now as I mentioned. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not accusing you of faking the histogram, but of making false claims: Well balanced histograms are placed away from the borders.... where the hell did you see that? At most it can be a rule of thumb applicable in most (but not all) situations, but why would we have to avoid borders? If they are here, it's for a reason. Just know when to use them. - Benh (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please Wladyslaw, don't take the comments and sugestions personally remember that it's not a beauty ego contest, it's a nice place to improve your photographic quality, the road to continuous improvement is criticism. Please, if you are not able to receive recommendations and criticism, maybe you could take a brake. Btw, try test see you histogram with this tool --The Photographer 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just because I have not the same opinion like some others this doesn't mean that I'm not able to receive criticism. Here we have a place to discuss. Many hints and opinions are usefull, but for sure not all. So: be sure that I take nothing personally. And please: I have many usefull picture processing programms. I have no need to install further. But nevertheless: thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, no wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see, you seem to prefer cloudy weather conditions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose underexposed. Or the church is grey. - Benh (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment and still no color space after all these years. - Benh (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - To me, this is an FP, based on my reaction to the light and composition and the quality of this large file, but Benh, is the lack of color space a big problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Quite a big. There's no scale associated to the "value" of the colours in this file and you basically see random ones. @Colin: has tried to explain very thoroughly (and probably even has written an introduction to it, but I'm currently too lazy to look for it) but there's also this. A bit annoying that our FP don't even have the proper metadata for a proper viewing (but many don't care about a proper exposed picture either so...) - Benh (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I already had said several times. I've adjusted everythink possible to safe the sRGB colour space in all my programms. Even I made screeenshots of the settings. Nothing wrong was visible. I dont't have a problem because of this lacking information. Most of the users seem to see the image quite correctly. Because of the reminded overexposure I'll look after this this evening. I can lighten the image moderatly. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wladyslaw has had it explained to him before how to embed the colour profile in his images. He's even managed it once or twice. He simply refuses to do so routinely, and repeatedly, for many many years, because he can't be bothered as it "looks ok on my monitor", which is set to sRGB. Anyone viewing on a wide-gamut display may not see the colours properly. It is all a bit random and depends if your browser guesses that it is "probably sRGB". Many still do not. It is fairly easy to tell if your image lacks the correct profile: stick it in Jeffrey's EXIF Viewer. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- What should Jeffrey's EXIF Viewer be usefull for? My EXIF Data I can read also without this tool. Beside of that: this tool does not generate an output. And once again: My images all have sRGB. This I can see on the RAW files. Once I convert the RAWs info JPG the coulur space info disappears and I have not found a way to add this back again and no one could answer why this is so. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- A raw file does not have a colourspace at all. It is not sRGB nor AdobeRGB. The little embedded JPG in the raw file may be sRGB or AdobeRGB but this does not matter if you process the raw file. We have already posted in the past to your talk page how to embed the colourspace. It is certainly possible with EXIFTOOL. I recall it is possible in GIMP but not very obvious how to do it. Both EXIFTOOL and Jeffrey's EXIF Viewer will tell you if there is an embedded colourspace. I remember from experimenting in the past that GIMP's dialogs are confusing / wrong when reporting colourspace. You are one of the few people here who gets this wrong, and yet other people have the same cameras and similar software. Talk to them and find out what you are doing wrong. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- What should Jeffrey's EXIF Viewer be usefull for? My EXIF Data I can read also without this tool. Beside of that: this tool does not generate an output. And once again: My images all have sRGB. This I can see on the RAW files. Once I convert the RAWs info JPG the coulur space info disappears and I have not found a way to add this back again and no one could answer why this is so. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose on further reflection after reading Colin's !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Good example of a building photographed from too close, so even when the verticals are corrected, the proportions are wrong. The cross should be smaller, as it is far away from the viewer, but instead is magnified. The solution is to take the image from further back, though this isn't always practice, without a drone! (Btw, although the EXIF says this was taken with a 70mm lens, it is actually a stitched photo so has a much wider angle of view). -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Peer W.carter --The Photographer 19:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Info FINALLY I found the reason why the embedded sRGB colour space was not displayed. Hopefully this problem is now solved definitely. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Question - What do you all think? Is the problem solved? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sadly not jet althought the "sRGB" is now in the EXIF, but there is possibly missing the embedding. But I'm working on this problem to solve it finally. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
* Support HalfGig talk 02:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but this is an invalid double vote per this discussion.. --cart-Talk 11:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It is definitely white originally. Looks very unnatural. -- Pofka (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Puez - Sella - Marmolada.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2018 at 16:28:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support small stitching errors but very nice view - Benh (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support excellent work.--Ermell (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --Granada (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 21:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. Charles (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Bgag (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Very impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral It's is an impressive wow-shot but that tree down the middle, giving us the finger, keeps bugging me. --cart-Talk 18:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 04:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
- Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 06:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Done right, this sort of view can be pretty in winter without snow. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 09:56:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Granada (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support da paßt alles. --Ralf Roleček 09:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The ski pole of the skier in front is distracting as is the camera at top right (if that's what it is) Charles (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment If I removed that I'll have to immediately return my press card as that would be a maniplulation that's not allowed. --Granada (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Charles (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- But if we start to manipulate photos we are starting to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia. --Granada (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia may have a more relaxed attitude towards minor fixes in photos than newspapers, but we should not ask a user to compromise their own ethics and standards to accommodate FPC. Especially since the user in question here, Granada, seems to be quite willing to let her noms fail rather than altering something in the photo. I would not advice her to do anything that might jeopardize her press pass. --cart-Talk 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see the problem with that ski pole, it matches the tip of a ski behind her and shows just how close the skiers are to each other on this stretch. --cart-Talk 14:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Good action, light in the right place, skier nicely separated from the background. I also like that she is "above" the spectators with her head in sky (well mountain) level, that gives this a hint of hero shot. --cart-Talk 18:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Cart, plus the skiier seems to "pop" out of the photo, making it seem almost 3-dimensional. PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support This time it´s obvious what´s the main subject and it´s presented very well. --Milseburg (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Balance of components better in this one. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support perfect! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 15:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Field Bindweed in Brodalen.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 11:41:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Convolvulaceae
- Info So, I've fixed the light and giving this another go. The O's on the first nomination were right, a more mellow light is better. Thanks for pushing me in the right direction. :) All by me,-- cart-Talk 11:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 11:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Agree this is better. PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Lovely. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per PumpkinSky. Daniel Case (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Works well as an encyclopaedic identification photo, with foliage, flowers face on, sideways and undeveloped. The flowers are exposed well for sunlight, demonstrating the satin sheen on the petals and subtle colours. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- This processing is definitely better Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Nara Park, November 2016.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 07:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Japan
- Info Autumnal impression of Nara Park, a public park located in the city of Nara, Japan, at the foot of Mount Wakakusa. It was established in the 1300s and is one of the oldest parks in Japan. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well done! --Poco2 18:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support It's all very white/bright/pale for an autumn photo, but it's all natural and that's what makes it so interesting. --cart-Talk 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Not sure about the composition, but I love the colours and atmosphere - Benh (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors seem way too washed-out for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment fair enough. Just for the record, I didn’t mess with colors or saturation at all. There’s shades and hues of all types of green or red to be seen. But true, the picture‘s almost mysteriously pale - primarily due to the lighting created by a totally overcast sky. That’s what makes the image special, imo —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
* Support HalfGig talk 02:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but this is an invalid double vote per this discussion.. --cart-Talk 11:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - The unsharp branches in the foreground, because they're fairly obtrusive, make this less than an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Such bright daylight may be a problem in most pictures, however everything fits together here very well for me. -- Pofka (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Martin's explanation. Perhaps we are used to images processed to have high global and local contrast and oversaturated colours. Commons is not 500px. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 10:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Granada (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--cart-Talk 18:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Ranunculus lyallii in Fiordland National Park.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 08:38:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed (sigh). I checked, the petals shall be white and not light grey. - Benh (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Those flowers are white for me, but is there some kind of Checker shadow illusion behind ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Could be a bit brighter. Two days ago the petals seemed to me to be greyish, today they are whiter. What happened? Illusion? --Llez (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Having thought about this for a long time, I land on 'oppose' because of the grey/underexposed petals. Sorry. --cart-Talk 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. I don't think the problem is the exposure so much as the post-processing. The EXIF demonstrates quite substantial adjustments. -- Colin (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to correct it. It's better? Tournasol7 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 05:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
- Info Suddenly this special light fell between the trees. And the picture became a painting. Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support another striking example of modern romanticism ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Martin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support The plastic bag doesn't really match, but it's hard to find a clean spot in the forest these days.--Ermell (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Plastic removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- You should have contacted the gummi bears company for an advertising fee :-) --Ermell (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Plastic removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. -- -donald- (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment A little bit too much uninteresting ground for my taste, some of the bottom could be cropped of, but the light is really lovely. Let's hear what others think, as I'm itching to support this. :) --cart-Talk 10:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Antwoord: I want to crop the photo, but do all the voters think that is okay?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- You could do two things: Just crop the photo since several users seems ok with that and 'ping' all the rest and tell them what you've done, or you could add the cropped version as an "Alt" and invite all voters via 'ping' to take a look at that. --cart-Talk 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support But I think the crop propsed by W.carter is better --Llez (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
SupportI love the misty atmosphere :) (I would only cut some of the ground.) - Benh (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)- Support Looks inviting without being simultaneously threatening, i.e., you could keep walking deeper into this forest looking for the reclusive wizard you need to talk to without worrying too much about being jumped by orcs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @XRay, Martin Falbisoner, Johann Jaritz, Ermell, -donald-, Basile Morin, PumpkinSky, Poco a poco, Benh, Daniel Case, and Llez: Alternative photo added.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin, PumpkinSky, Poco a poco, Benh, Daniel Case, and Llez: Alternative photo added.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Llez and W.carter: Alternative photo added.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose unbalanced. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Alternative
edit- Support The first one is good for FP. So I'll promoted the first one. This one is a little bit better. So I'll support it too. --XRay talk 07:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support also fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - To me, this is much better and an FP. I like how I feel more in the midst of the light. I wasn't sure about the other version, and that's why I hadn't voted so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Oh yes! --cart-Talk 09:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per XRay. I think this is the first time I saw a FPC with 12-0 votes have an alt offerred. PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Yes --Llez (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I'm OK with this one too ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I prefer that cropping :) - Benh (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
* Support This one is better HalfGig talk 02:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but this is an invalid double vote per this discussion.. --cart-Talk 11:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Glad I could support this one. I almost mist it. — Rhododendrites talk | 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support This one is definitely better. Much more mysterious and reminds some fantastic movies. -- Pofka (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support This is better and has a nice atmosphere. Charles (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I love it --The Photographer 02:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Really a nice atmosphere. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 13:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
- Info created & uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Are they definitely transporting it Basile Morin ? Charles (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, as shown on this video File:Red weaver ants transporting a dead gecko, in Laos (video).webm -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Super video, but it does not show that the ants are transporting the gecko. Charles (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- See this definition of the verb https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transport#Verb : "To carry or bear from one place to another; to remove; to convey." -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Unwise to try to educate a native English speaker on his own language. There is no evidence in the video that these ants are trying to move the gecko from one place to another. Movement caused by the action of the ants and gravity is not the same as transportation. I know that ants do transport food. Charles (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- They're not only trying to move the gecko from one place to another, they're doing so. The video gives the proof that they manage. Displacement by carrying. Conveyance -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Thank you very much Tomer T for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 16:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Ok... gross. --cart-Talk 18:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Excellent moment, I will change my vote to support if the distracting background is cut (I added a note) --The Photographer 02:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ok with a crop. I kept the background to show the verticality (and thus the strength of the ants), but I agree a cut would improve the image aesthetically. What others think ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. If the cut is not done you could fix the CA (I added a note) --The Photographer 04:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - This is larger than life, isn't it? How big are the ants? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- They are very big ants, about 1,5 cm long -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- You should correct the Wikipedia article if you believe it is wrong. The article states that workers are 6mm long and major workers are a maximum of 1cm long. Charles (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Legs included -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Going to cancel my flight ticket to Laos :) - Benh (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment and my vote is for that framing only. - Benh (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support This is different --Poco2 18:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great shot and HEV Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Thought provoking. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 13:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Granada (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 16:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Next time try bracketing to get a sky blue (if it was the case) --The Photographer 02:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Very spare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support good --Mile (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier 11.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2018 at 02:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
- Info All by -- The Photographer 02:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Foreground is too dark. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose Love the composition as it perfectly captures this sort of break-in-the-woods overlook that you might have hiked a long way to reach. And I'm not bothered by the dark spot. But I do think the trees in the background could be sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I think though the "break-in-the-woods" view one gets on a hike is more to be appreciated in the moment. On a 2D monitor screen it doesn't always give the same reward. I'm just not getting the 3D pop out at me here, and not sure why. Daniel I think the sharpness of the trees is fine. Most of our landscape photos have soft tree in the distance due to atmospheric effects and there is at least one other panorama on this page with soft trees and no complaints. Remember this is a 41MP stitched image and not to penalise The Photographer for not downsizing to 16MP say. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Landscape in Peyriac-de-Mer, february 2018 (03).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 17:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose While the sunset on water is nice, most sunsets are nice. I don't really get the other stuff, with dark vertical stripe of shrubs and the dark hills which aren't impressive enough to look great as silhouette. (I think there was scope, on the right hand side, with a telephoto, to get some nice layers of colour/tone on the water & clouds.) -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2018 at 09:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As seen at QIC. There were several really good images in this series and this one is one of my favourites: sharp, nice facial expression, impression of speed and splashing snow. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Exciting! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Sharp photo with wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very good! --Granada (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Whoah! Could use a little, little more light. --cart-Talk 10:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
SupportCharles (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Granada says this has been downscaled. Is that true? Charles (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please have a look at the featured sports pictures that were shot indoors (most of them are handball) or at bad lighting. The are _all_ downscaled, so it does not matter if an exciting sports image has its full resolution or if it's downscaled to 6MP as the image above. --Granada (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- It might be downscaled but this image at its resolution still keeps on being absolutely stunning to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks to Basotxerri for nomination and reasoning! This picture is a crop because of speed she left almost the frame, original size 3550 at the long side. Amused by the discussion I have uploaded an upscale - 5600px at the long side. On a 27" UHD Monitor (2560x1440) it looks still fine at 100%. Maybe anyone can explain the benefit? --Isiwal (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for uploading the 100% version! tl;dr: It's still great. "But" now one can see the small deficits lenses produce with a camera that has the same pixel density as my D850: small amounts of CAs, small amounts of halos around contrasting edges and small amounts of unsharpness. But I know that one can easily make very large prints of either version of this image without any kind of visibility of those lens errors or the reduced resolution of the downscaled version. --Granada (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- To me, it's even more impressive at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support High cool factor. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Awesome ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per above -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong support An image that conveys extremely well the essence of what is not a widely-known sport (at least outside of Europe). I realize she probably isn't smiling, if so certainly not for the camera, but nonetheless she still looks like she's having a good time. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - It is very impressive how the subject could tilt her bike sideways and hold still in such a position while you take such a sharp photo. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 05:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support No room for criticism Poco2 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2018 at 15:53:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 15:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 15:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Didn't we have this one, or another one very much like it, recently? Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we had. The other one has lost FP because of a double vote of a socketpuppet. --XRay talk 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please have a look to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Innenansicht -- 2018 -- 0580.jpg and Commons:Village_pump#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry. --XRay talk 05:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I therefore !vote ...
- ... Support as I did last time. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @XRay: how about pinging people who previously voted? - Benh (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, yes. @Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, Uoaei1, Llez, Albertus teolog, Charlesjsharp, Pofka, Ikan Kekek, and Benh: I'd nominated this photograph because the old one has lost FP assessment. The reason is shown above as answer to Daniel's questions - thanks to socketpuppets. Otherwise there are two possible candidates taken last week - without christmas tree. So I added this one as candidate. (The other choice could be File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Innenansicht -- 2018 -- 0772.jpg.) --XRay talk 07:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Hope you succeed this time without doubt --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support this photo is better Albertus teolog (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Yes, this one without the tree I can support. --cart-Talk 10:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I even like that with tree, despite bad cut. Its spartanic pic. --Mile (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 09:28:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
- Info Post mill, rebuild in the open air museum Cloppenburg, Germany. The mill has presumably been build in 1683 at Essern, District of Nienburg Germany.
- all by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose trivial composition and disturbing fence on the foreground. - Benh (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
OpposeDistorted; on the left side have a look on the signpost, the wastebasket, the trees and bushes and even the left border of the fence surrounding the mill, all leaning more or less to the right, whereas the trees and the framework of the house on the right are leaning to the left. --Llez (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)- Done It didn't bother me so much, but the criticism's just about right. I've tried to change that, and I hope it's better now.--Ermell (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Much better now --Llez (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - The railing at the lower right spoils the composition for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice building but not seeing what raises this, as a photo, above QI. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Metro de São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 15:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
- Info All by -- The Photographer 15:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose because I wouldn't want to be caught like that in a subway and be exposed on a front page of a large traffic website ; and maybe those people don't want either. - Benh (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Only fyi the people on front is my family and friends. --The Photographer 18:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK thanks. But there are other people behind ;-) - Benh (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Only fyi the people on front is my family and friends. --The Photographer 18:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Good shot of a train interior, but now wow (sorry) --A.Savin 19:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per A.Savin.--Peulle (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I like it, and since there's already a personality-rights tag on the file, and The Photographer has said he knows the people identifiably depicted, I have no objections. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Btw, Find the user Beria in the picture :) --The Photographer 16:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- @The Photographer: Are you sure that user wants to be outed/revealed in this way?? --cart-Talk 21:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@W.carter:A.Savin When you are taking pictures of architectural wonders or beautiful landscapes it's very easy to get a wow effect and finally a FP. I think that those architectural wonders are always there wainting for be shooted because they can be photographed by anyone in any time and the change on this building or landspace is minimal in decades and just the next year someone will make a better picture because this type of photography has more to do with the camera power camera than the photographer himself. Turning ordinary things into wonderful is what makes a good photographer, however, it is more difficult to impact when you take pictures of common things but of fleeting moments that will not come back again. In this particular case, it is a photograph that is the result of the 3 year work (It seems unbelievable but it is true). Each day I was going to take the same picture, taking care of the details and looking for a way to make it better the next day. Taking a picture inside a moving car is a very difficult task especially because there is little lighting, people are in constant motion (especially in the most densely traveled metro in the world sao paulo) and a great depth of field is necessary. This photo is not particularly great and a photo should not be explained to be FP, however, I think that in this section, in the evaluation process, we are basing ourselves only on visual aspects without taking into account some particularities. My comment is more general and not specifically about this image that I'm honestly not sure I can or can not be FP.--The Photographer 15:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)- @The Photographer: I think you misunderstood me very much!! I was not criticizing your photo at all, I was only concerned that you had revealed the name of a Commons user and in a way told everyone that it was a person in this photo. I was thinking about that user's right to have their Commons name protected. That has nothing to do with the quality of your photo, which is actually very good under such difficult circumstances. --cart-Talk 15:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment There are several possibilities to photograph a metro train interior: you can wait till the train has stopped (to avoid camera shake), you can make the photo at late hour (so that it's not much crowded). Yes it's more difficult than a building at sunny day, but still not particularly challenging to say "wow" just because of technically good shot. For those, there is COM:QIC. --A.Savin 05:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I was answering it to A.Savin --The Photographer 17:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Having met Beria I will say she's very, uh, outgoing anyway and probably wouldn't mind (but all the same, even though I'm pretty sure which person in the photo is her, I will not say so publicly). Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Btw, Find the user Beria in the picture :) --The Photographer 16:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too ordinary, no wow as others already mentioned. -- Pofka (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Convinced by The Photographer's explanation. Good educational value. I think this is harder than it looks, and I certainly don't feel brave enough to point my DSLR down the tube carriage. -- We currently have a campaign of posters asking the public to report anyone doing dodgy things like taking photos on the underground. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Colin: That's an interesting picture. It shows someone who is taking photo of a CCTV camera in London Underground (?) and they advise to report this person to police, if I understand correctly. Well, maybe they should switch on Common Sense first, and the Golden Rule here is the following: Anything that is accessible and visible to public is meaningless to prohibit to take pictures of. It adds nothing to safety, national security, counnter-terrorism etc. pp., it's just -- one freedom less, period. For this reason, photographing in public transport remains prohibited in countries like Uzbekistan (dictatorship). Very sad that they in England are still thinking like barbarians from dictatorships. Just a side note. --A.Savin 18:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. --Gnosis (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 07:44:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info Chica Beach, Tarifa, province of Cádiz, Andalusia, Spain. Poco2 07:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 07:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment just my two cents: someone told me that a good starting point for evaluating an FP-nomination is to view the image and ask yourself, if you would like to have this image in a calendar. This image is too boring for featuring it inside a calendar that I would hang on my walls. --Granada (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I added a cut sugestion too --The Photographer 15:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - It looks to me like your proposed cut greatly improves the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, now there is 2 of you, will upload a new version this evening --Poco2 12:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek and The Photographer: : Done Poco2 19:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Now the composition look more clean and relaxing, I can almost hear the waves sound --The Photographer 19:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Granada. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support this version. In spite of the drama of the waves, this feels like an understated take on a beach: off-season, with overcast skies. I also like the remains of wooden fences as compositional elements. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I would agree to have calendar with this picture included into it. The beige sand and bright blue water fits together very well and these buildings, fences (especially fences) makes it not completely boring. It is quite simple, but a very harmonious picture. -- Pofka (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great as it is. A unique slant on composition and perspective; it's slightly jarring in a good way... --BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 13:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
File:October Bout-20121027-870.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2018 at 08:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by David Bedard - uploaded by Palosirkka - nominated by Palosirkka -- Palosirkka (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Palosirkka (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Imported from Flickr? Was this made by a Wikipedian? And apart from that even to me as a sports photographer this is too dark, too noisy (there's even chrominance noise visible) and the amount of action that roller derby could show not enough. --Granada (talk)
- Comment It doesn't have to be made by a Commoner to reach FP status, that's QI you're talking about. :) That said, I Oppose because the quality is far below FP level.--Peulle (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Exactly, but I don't think it's good enough to pass at QIC even if it were a photo by a Commoner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @Peulle: Then I'm sorry and was wrong. I thought I once saw an instant rejection of an FPC as it was not made by a Wikipedian/Commoner. --Granada (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't have to be made by a Commoner to reach FP status, that's QI you're talking about. :) That said, I Oppose because the quality is far below FP level.--Peulle (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Very low quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Without even looking at it at full size, I'm unimpressed. It doesn't convey any sense of a fast-paced and violent sport. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. --Gnosis (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose While being a not so stunning shot, the technical realisation not good enough for a FP either. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
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 of too low quality to be featured.--Peulle (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Ceiling of Tomb of Omar Khayyam.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2018 at 10:04:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info created by Vathlu - uploaded by Vathlu - nominated by Vathlu -- Vathlu (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Vathlu (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Great motif, but not comparable in sharpness to the very best ceilings, such as those Diego shot in Iran. I notice this work is 10 years old. Do you have any newer work that's higher resolution? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm also convinced that we should apply the current technical references to current nominations. Imagine this image was nominated back in 2007 and had become an FP back then we would never rip that FP badge off the image, but viewed under todays standards it's not good enough. --Granada (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose So many ways this could have been better ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the quality is too low for a 2018 FP.--Peulle (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:The Chakaymanta Dance School (10).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 21:34:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Silvina Frydlewsky - uploaded and nominated by me -- SlowManifesto (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- SlowManifesto (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support HalfGig talk 02:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Posterization and unsharpness. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's a good idea to have a photo in which all the dancers' faces are hidden except for one, but then that one dancer has to have a sharp face, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment @Ikan Kekek: @Daniel Case: Would you please take a look at Category:The Chakaymanta Dance School and tell me if any of these photos are suitable for FP nomination? SlowManifesto (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I looked at a couple, neither of which I thought were sharp enough, but I think that's really more a question for Com:Photography critiques. Have you tried submitting any photos to com:qic? QIC's criteria aren't the same as FPC's, but it's unusual for a photo that fails at QIC to pass at FPC. (You might know all of this; if you do, no offense intended for sharing information.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not extraordinary, unsharp capture. Quite simple straight shot taken from a side. -- Pofka (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2018 at 07:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Granada (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support dynamic, sharp, well lit, pleasant bokeh, leaves nothing to be desired --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Martin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Now this is how I'd expect this shot to look if it were in a sports publication ... skier looking toward the viewer, background not distracting, and a nice dynamic pose. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm still OK with this new version. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Can someone explain to me why a photo with all those burned areas in the background should be an FP? PumpkinSky talk 03:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question then why this vote? - Benh (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 10:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The face of the leading skier is not in focus. I'm not keen on the background either. Charles (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @Charlesjsharp: I've uploaded a new version with changed white balance and a bit selective darkening the background. In ternms of sharpness please note that the ski-bob-lady shot by Isiwal is downscaled, which is perfectly o.k. to me, but I fully intentionally left Fabian Rießle at 100% because his face is reasonably sharp enough for print and other possible reuses. --Granada (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't spot the downscaling on the ski bob picture unfortunately. I just liked the composition. Charles (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This is only visible at 100% and "tack sharp at 100%" is not an FP requirement. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping. --Granada (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
OpposeSharpness is ok and it's action-y, but the main subject is in shadow while the background is in sunlight and that's seldom a good combo. Also the skiers aren't that separated from the rather busy background and the shadow gives the snow a rather unpleasant greenish tint. Sorry. --cart-Talk 18:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support Ok, this is better. --cart-Talk 10:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Opposeper Charles and cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @Basotxerri: I've uploaded a new version with changed white balance and a bit selective darkening the background. --Granada (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, the new version is much better. However, for my taste the background is too nervous for a support vote. I change my vote to Neutral. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cart and plus that burnt background. PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Shouldn't this !vote be struck now? Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- No. One vote per picture up to the block is ok according to the discussion that followed the debacle. Only the noms that have the PS/HG double votes get one of those votes struck. --cart-Talk 19:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Shouldn't this !vote be struck now? Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'll better end this as it is as always very frustrating to see the initial approval turn to the negative side. --Granada (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Granada: Unfortunately, that is how it is many times, since most users don't want to give an 'O' without careful consideration. If you want to end the nomination, you have to put the
{{withdraw}}
at the end of the nom and sign it, please. --cart-Talk 11:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: PumpkinSky's vote made me post that I should close this nomination, but now I'll leave it open as I'm still convinced that it's a great shot as noted by Daniel Case. btw: I tried to dim the background by laying a mask over it, but then the image looks purely unnatural. No good idea. --Granada (talk)
- Perfectly ok. Even though I voted 'opposed', I still think it may have a chance and if the majority votes for it, I'm fine with that. That's how the system works. :) --cart-Talk 13:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Btw, small tip for you. If you take the white balance from the snow in front instead of the huts behind the trees, do a selective very small darkening of the background's mid-tones and bring up the foreground's highlights a little bit, I think it will make the photo look better. --cart-Talk 13:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Thank you very much for that hint. This was one of the first images I uploaded quite quickly while the event was still running (this was the first of three days) and did not much care about white balance. I'm now almost finished (took about 4000 shots) and I noticed once again that the auto-wb of the D850 works fantastic in comparison to the D4 I had before, but that it could help a lot to tweak it a few degrees (+3 warmer in Lightroom is enough in most cases). Especially in such tough lighting situations with bright snow and stray light of the sun coming through the trees. --Granada (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: I've uploaded a new version with changed white balance and a bit darker background (made an auto mask in LR based on about the brighter midtones and lowered the lights and the shadows in the masked area) --Granada (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll take this under consideration later. When you alter your nomination this way, you must also 'ping' all the other voters (I think you can skip PumpkinSky), even those who voted for the photo, since they may or may not like this new version. --cart-Talk 17:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Granada: Unfortunately, that is how it is many times, since most users don't want to give an 'O' without careful consideration. If you want to end the nomination, you have to put the
- Comment I see that you have pinged the opposers, but you have to ping all the voters when you make such a change in your photo time, please keep that in mind the next time. I'll do it for you. Pinging Martin Falbisoner, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, Michielverbeek, Ralf Roletschek. --cart-Talk 10:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - The original seems more natural to me; this version looks later in the day. But it's not something I'll change my vote over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Actually it's been quite late in the afternoon with a beginning sunset so the colors are now more correct than the blueish tint it had before due to much of the light being reflected by the snow. :) --Granada (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Got it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting background. The subject is not well isolated. Also the face of the skier is not sharp. The focus seems to be on the legs, behind -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding sharpness I better should have uploaded a downscaled version in 3000x2000 as in that 6MP of resolution everything would be sharp. --Granada (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure, because downscaling also provides an impression of poorer quality when looking at full size (less impressive format). Also a high resolution is useful for further crops, in case of a reuse for example. Here at 6Mp, I find the face just okay, but not exceptionnal. Smooth, like lacking texture. But my main objection is the background, too busy -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Basile --Poco2 17:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I'm perfectly fine with this withdrawel. This is not my best photo. --Granada (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2018 at 22:48:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful play of light and shadows. --Code (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 19:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Satisfying composition, per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment You should correct the filename as there's an e missing. :) --Granada (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Beignet maker.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2018 at 08:58:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Good color scheme, beautiful light, there is a calm in this portrait of a man seemingly content with his work that I really like. --cart-Talk 10:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support per cart (although I wonder if it could be cropped in a bit more on both sides to simplify it a bit and get rid of the more unsharp areas?) Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support HalfGig talk 23:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Colors are very good at such lighting. -- Pofka (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer 02:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support ...and seven :) --Poco2 10:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Even though I think it's a taaaad underexposed - Benh (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but all I see are midtones and little contrast, like an underexposed colour film. -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Oever van het meer in de mist. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen).jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2018 at 05:52:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena # The Netherlands
- Info Shore of the lake in the fog. There is a thin layer of ice on the water. and everything is covered with frost. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent composition. WOW! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 11:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Lovely scenery, well captured. Good wow factor. --Peulle (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Really excellent. Charles (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Johann. I like how the light at upper left is complemented by the open area reflecting on ice at lower right. It looks like another "cover for an interesting album" image ... possibly one with a soft, folky sort of sound. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very nice tones -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow --The Photographer 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The tone is nice, but compare with File:Oever van het meer in de mist. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 01.jpg taken 20s different and what I see is the choice between the "Cloudy" white balance setting in "Lightroom" and "Daylight". So I'm left wondering what is real. The arrangement of shrubs and grasses isn't quite simple enough for me to consider this as an artistic photo where the reality of the lighting doesn't matter at all. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I hesitated on this because so many of you love this photo, but to me, the composition is like a very good sketch, but not a finished artwork. It doesn't quite add up to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose It will become FP, but anyhow I wanted to bring up that I enjoy the lighting very much, and the detail is also good, but the composition is not convincing, Poco2 20:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2018 at 20:45:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info View of the town hall in a grey day, Unity of Italy Square, Trieste, Italy. The building dates from 1875 and is a work of italian architect Giuseppe Bruni. All by me, Poco2 20:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 20:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice Shoot, I will support when the verticals and white aura are fixed (see notes) --The Photographer 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Unnatural. Strong and visible processing. The original sky was probably white or light grey, and the exposition seems to have been selectively darkened. As a result, we can see the separation line all around the buildings made by the adjustment brush (or equivalent tool). It creates an artificial white halo around the roofs and walls, which has certainly nothing to do with the initial shot at normal global exposure. The most visible parts of this selective correction are probably on the left around the sculptures, and on the right side of the central building. The final result gives an impressive sky, but unfortunately unrreal because not matching with the lighting of the buildings-- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Oppose Yes, the editing doees seem very poor.Charles (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)- Comment @The Photographer, Daniel Case, Basile Morin, and Charlesjsharp: : I fixed the halo (agree, was not at FP level) and reduced a bit the dramatic effect of the sky. @The Photographer: I also applied a slight fix to the perspective. @Basile, about your comment, you don't have too develop a theory about what I could have edited, just look at the file history, I don't have anything to hide. Poco2 11:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- The natural was hidden behind a giant mask of darkness, sorry. This new version is more acceptable Neutral -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is a perspective problem, I added a note --The Photographer 00:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @The Photographer: , I am not really sure whether you can expect everything to be perfectly straight here, I applied a 0,1° tilt Poco2 18:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I was looking the last version, Now there is an acceptable quality for FP. A panoramic cut would also improve giving more representation to the structure and not to the white line. My personal recommendation is that a well-made photo does not need so many retouching. Recently I am trying to make the minor adjustments possible to a photo, especially retouching manual (like perspective and clarity filter in the sky), this kind of retouching usually ends up damaging other things how result of the repair procedure. --The Photographer 18:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment see note - I'd suggest a much more panoramic crop. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I can offer an alt, any other opinions? I do like the perspective as a result of the line I was standing on --Poco2 15:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Processing went a bit overboard in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 15:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 01:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Some criticism of the excessive photo editing maybe, but the image makes up for it as the vastness of the square is caught nicely... --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Vitoria - Campo de los Palacios -BT- 05.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2018 at 09:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
- Info created & uploaded by User:Basotxerri - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - There's a somewhat similar nomination below of, in that case, a road lined with tall trees. I think this view, which is more focused on the trees and has no buildings competing with the long depth of the tree-lined path, works a lot better than that one. P.S. Feel free to fine-tune the category if you like. Given that it's a track, I don't think I can call this a purely natural place; therefore, I couldn't think of a good subcategory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Ikan! Places#Spain is quite OK, isn't it? --Basotxerri (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't feel like this crop works. I realize there are limitations, but this just feels like the kind of shots that should include the whole tree.--Peulle (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Very understandable objection. I decided that it works quite well enough, anyway, but people tend to be sticklers about crops at FPC. Interestingly, loads of painters don't have the same standards about cropping that we tend to have at FPC, and this includes great painters and great paintings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Ironically, cropping even more (say, in half) might have the opposite effect; increasing the focus on the road instead of the trees, improving the composition. Not sure that would be the best solution, though.--Peulle (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The attention is drawn to the blue sky but the interest should be directed to the person at the end of the road, which is much too dark. Quite good picture but no FP for me. --Ermell (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Very well-reasoned criticism. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Somehow unbalanced. The end of the path is somewhat lost too. Otherwise good effort... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeckenhamBear (talk • contribs)
- Comment - I signed for you, but why isn't this template available below the edit screen? I had to copy and paste from Wikivoyage... Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This obviously won't get enough votes, and I have other pictures to nominate. Thanks to everyone who voted, commented or just looked at the photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Balsamorhiza sagittata 14.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2018 at 19:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by ThayneT - uploaded by ThayneT - nominated by [[User:{{subst:ThayneT}}|]] -- ThayneT (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- ThayneT (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much unsharpness, and kind of on the small side. Also seems sort of distorted. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp, dull colors, CAs -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not one of the best images on Commons. Nuff said. --Peulle (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Nice idea, though. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination ThayneT (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Sydney Opera House 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2018 at 20:06:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Bgag (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose A well-done image, deservedly a QI, of a much-photographed landmark that does not make me feel like I haven't seen it before. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose A good image, but for such a much-photographed subject you really have to knock it out of the park to stake a claim for it being one of the best images on Commons. In this case, the lighting is unimpressive.--Peulle (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel and Peulle. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others - it's a very good photo you should be proud of, but it's not a breathtaking, unbelievable photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the above comments.--Peulle (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Peulle, it is a bit unnecessary to put up these FPX tags when the "fifth day clean-up bot" will take care of it anyway (section 8/1). You don't have to rub a new FPC nominator's nose in that their photo will not be featured if it doesn't have any very obvious fault. --cart-Talk 17:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I thought it was the fpx thing that made it go off the list quicker. My bad. --Peulle (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- The bot doesn't care about these templates, they only alert that this can be removed and that has to be done manually, often by me. --cart-Talk 17:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Panorama of the Rhine in Cologne.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2018 at 12:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
- Info Panorama of Cologne as seen from the Rhine near the Kranhäuser. There was a previous nom years ago - I've tried to address some issues brought up then. I still like the image very much, especially for its colors. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral The image isn't convincing me entirely, maybe because there's a lot of dark foreground. Further, although it sounds absurd, the clouds on the upper right corner are distracting me in some way. But overall, it's a nice shot. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- weak Support Also to me the dark foreground is distracting the image, but the left bank of the Rhein is very nicely shot. Maybe you could try this image again from a few steps further to the shores avoiding the black grass to appear in the image? --Granada (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment seems the same as the previous nomination. Charles (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Very nice buildings, very bothering foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Looks kind of oversharpened. But without the full metadata telling us the exposure time, I have no way of judging whether this might have been necessary or not. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- well, Daniel, this is an HDR and unfortunately I don’t recall the three exposure times used. –Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I totally get the lure of the panorama and with structures as cool as those buildings and the brigde, it's hard to resist. But when you have to wrestle with a cumbersome foreground like this, it's better to give in and make two photos instead: one of those fantastic buildings from this point and one of the bridge from a place a bit further to the right. Unless you have a friend who's into fly fishing and you can borrow his gear. :) Unfortunately, not all fantastic panoramas are easily transformed from real life to paper/screen. --cart-Talk 12:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination. You're right. I'll try again later this year. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Group of pirogues.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 02:11:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -Stunning scenario. - Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Unschärfe im Nahbereich, grüner Saum um die Bäume --Ralf Roleček 10:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- 我不這麼認為 -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I see a light/green halo round the trees too. Have you done some processing on the sky that has not be carefully masked near the trees? -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Слажем се да сте обојица у праву. --Mile (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Bgag (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--cart-Talk 18:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Halavar (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Actually I've no problem with the sharpness (not brilliant but acceptable for FP), but the composition is not wowing, maybe there are just too many lines to guide the eye, but without any harmony. And the shadow is not helping, either, sorry, not one of our finest IMHO --Poco2 20:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2018 at 21:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info Like many photographers inspired to take a photo of the recent super moon, I chose an elevated position -- the viewing gallery at the top of the Tate Modern in London -- and waited for the moon to appear. Tripods were very much not allowed :-( so pixel-peeping quality is what you'd expect from hand-held low-light. I think the view is wonderful, with lots of interesting buildings and new construction going on. The moon is captured neatly between the Willis Building and the Walkie-Talkie. The available light, artificial light and moon brightness are all optimal for a single exposure. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, it is a good photo, an interesting cityscape, very encyclopedic, etc. But when all is said and done, it is just another very good skyline with the moon. Going for composition, imagination, novelty, interest, humor, well everything that a really wow-y photo should have, I'd take File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 6.jpg anytime over this. That photo makes you look twice and the second time you realize that you actually see much more than just half the moon. A photo named "Super moon... something" should have the moon as the main character/focal point, in this nom it is just an accessory to the skyline, dwarfed by the buildings. You did an excellent series of this event and I have another favorite than you. --cart-Talk 22:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't give much consideration to the filename (it is one of seven different photos with the same name pattern), so I wouldn't read it as a title for this work. The whole super moon thing is a bit of fun, great if it gets people interested in astronomy or out taking pictures, but the full moon isn't noticeably smaller next month. Perhaps it is ironic that this so-called super moon, really is dwarfed by a gherkin, cheese-grater and walkie-talkie. So, cover up the "super" word with your thumb, if it helps :-). I'll have a think about the other photo as a later nom perhaps -- it isn't an alt. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but please nominate the other photo too, don't be stingy. ;-) I know that you always advocate that we should be very selective with our nominations, that is why I made the comment above, but I think we could stand two photos from this event. :) --cart-Talk 08:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Just came across this article. The photographer was 15km away whereas I was 1.5km away from the buildings, but obviously we were both pointing in similar directions. He had a 500mm lens + 2x converter making 1000mm focal length. And a very sturdy video tripod. The photos look cool and he considers them the best he's taken in his life! But would these murky 0.4MP images pass FP here? It was actually this guy's blog that I used to find my viewpoint on the Tate Modern, as he recommends several London viewpoints. After the moon went behind the Walkie-Talkie, I went down to the Thames bank and could use my tripod and 500mm lens (equivalent to 750mm on full frame). But the moon was higher now and the sky darker, so this image was my best shot. At least our moons are real, unlike Peter Lik's Photoshop fail. -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- You beat me... I forgot to suggest that for this to work, you need longer focals (but yes, this also implies you need to have a proper spot for a similar framing). Nice scouting and anticipation though :) - Benh (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Very lovely shot, quality just barely enough to scrape by for a cityscape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support No chance to take a picture like this over here because of the clouds (and the skyline of course)--Ermell (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 08:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
OpposeClaustrophobic shot. For digital cam quality is low, especially noise. Strange red glare around cranes (anoted). Left side have some strange viggneting (anoted). Could be better than this. --Mile (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC) p.S. Also, title, its about moon, but its more about city.- The glow round the red lights is just due to the weather/atmosphere that evening. See this photo. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Saw. That is truly more about moon, if he didnt enlarge it. NIKON PROFESSIONAL group... --Mile (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Mile, I have fixed the vignetting. Possibly from the pillar on my left that I was leaning against. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I've gone back and forth in my head over this one, but ultimately I like it as a nice compact blue-hour shot of the City skyline that shows it can be striking without the obligatory inclusion of the Shard. The moon? That's how it really looked in context. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. The Shard is on my (as photographer) side of the river and these City skyscrapers are on the other side. There are a few towers being built on the Shard side now but most of the action is north of the river. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 10:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2018 at 22:26:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created & uploaded by User:Isiwal - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- CommentThanks for nomination to Ikan and for all comments so far. I removed the branches as required. Normally I fake my pictures only for photographic competitions, commons always get the original...--Isiwal (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - You're welcome! Your photos are so impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - How about another sport, dogsled racing? And yet another incredibly clear, picturesque photo by Isiwal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment bits of branch distracting though. Charles (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I like those because with other elements, they help form somewhat of a frame, but I expected some objections to them. If Isiwal would like to clone them out, I won't complain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support but WB looks a bit yellowish --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support as already stated in QIC: great view with the wide angle lens! At least my view is not distracted by that branches in the top right corner. --Granada (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Ssshhhhht! Quiet and don't tell! This is also downscaled. --Granada (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 08:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support While the top right twigs are a bit distracting, that's a minor thing. Overall a great image - I particularly like how the dogs are "posing" for the camera by looking at the photographer. It's like they're saying: "Hey, look at us, we be pullin' this thang like it ain't nuthin'!" :D --Peulle (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting headgear. :) I've added Category:People wearing GoPro to the photo. --cart-Talk 11:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Cart isnt this PR !? People wearing GoPro ?! --Mile (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, we also have Category:People with iPhones. If we have a GoPro category that gets large enough it makes sense to calve off a "People wearing ..." category, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Per Daniel. I didn't create the category and there are heaps, and heaps of categories mentioning different brand names like Category:Coca-Cola, Reebok International Limited footwear, Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80, and so on. --cart-Talk 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment We are going down. Homo sapiens...with iPhone. You know that clock, showing time to Doms Day...it was 5 to 12 someday. iPhone, GoPro, we are there, minute till. --Mile (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Mush! Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Like the balance in the picture User:LG Nyqvist --LG Nyqvist (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Stepro (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well captured! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 17:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 13:06:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created & uploaded by Granada - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Please, could you explain why this image is too smal if the camera was a NIKON D850?, thanks --The Photographer 02:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you do sports action photography downscaling images is the standard procedure of choice. The D850 features 46MP and that's exactly why I got me a D850 for shooting sports. It allows me to crop images and still have lots of megapixels left. Next as in the above image that was shot at ISO 3200 I can still downscale images to compensate for slight misses in sharpness in an overall great shot. Finally this image still has 5MP, way too much for sending it to the newspapers - they want not more than 2MP. I'm a wikipedian and shooting at national matches gives me the opportunity to take the best portrait shots ever during the hymn ceremonies before every match and that's why I attend those matches for. You may want to compare these recent images from that match Austria vs. Czechia the above image is from Category:Men's_handball_Austria_-_Czechia_2018-05-01 (the portraits have about 2-5MP and are cropped tight enough) to these older ones made with my old D4: File:20170316 OEHB Ladies AUT-CZE Tulln Josefine Huber DSC 2838.jpg (1.5MP and cropped not really tight enough). --Granada (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia may therefore not be the right place to submit your commercial/newspaper-oriented images. 11:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC) Charles (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I am a pure wikipedian and those action shots are a by-product while taking portrait shots for the articles on Wikipedia. I don't sell any of my photographs to any kind of newspaper or press photo agency, but I need those action shots as these are the kind of photographs sometimes being reused elsewhere to argue for renewal of my press card. It was hard enough to obtain a press card if you don't earn your money through photography as a door opener to other sports events and I'm proud it has "Wikipedia" printed on it. --Granada (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Thanks Granada for your explain, however, Charles commented, Commons is not oriented only to commercial/newspaper. There are a importand information for each pixel and noise, and maybe rightnow it is irrelevant, however, in the future it would be interesting to have this photo in the largest possible size. I am convinced that with the new advances in photography, there will be mechanisms with artificial intelligence to better eliminate noise and give greater clarity. To vote positive for this photo is to stimulate the bad practice of downsizing. BTW, 1/1000 it was an excessive speed, necessary only perhaps in F1 car sports. [2] --The Photographer 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment 1/1000 sec good setting I think. Charles (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, 1/1000 sec is necessary for a reasonably high hit rate in handball. At lower shutter speeds you will definitely see motion blur. @The Photographer: the guidelines for FP do not explicitly forbid downscaling. Please have a look at the featured sports pictures that were shot indoors (most of them are handball). The are _all_ downscaled for the very same reasons I did it with mine. --Granada (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I wish this photo were somewhat bigger, too, but it's exciting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great sport photo. --Yann (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support From a Commons perspective, wish it were bigger and less noisy. From a sports photographer POV, absolutely no complaints. 1/1000 sec is standard for sport photos like these. -- KTC (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm OK with downsizing a high-iso image. While software may improve in the future for NR, you simply can't put back in what isn't there, and the noise = less information. However, is is 1/3 size after crop/downsize and only 4.8MP, so I'd encourage to try a bit less downsizing and deal with any pixel peeping. It would be great if it could fill a 4K screen, for example. -- Colin (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Over all that arguing I forgot that I think that it would be totally legal for me to support this nomination. It's my favourite of the action shots I made at that game. --Granada (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Granada, just make sure you only support it once :-) -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Don't worry, I'm not into sockpuppetry (in fact my only WP account Granada exists since 2004 and once was not even global). Sad enough that one of my nominations were double-opposed by PumpkinSky and HalfGig. --Granada (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 08:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
File:34th Street station August 2017 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 12:20:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info created by ArildV - uploaded by ArildV - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As seen at QIC. I like the vanishing point and impression of motion. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 16:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, it is a nice vanishing point, but for this to get wow-y, it needs a lot more contrast and clarity. Converting a photo to good B&W is a bit more that just clicking on 'remove color', you have to edit it after that too since we look at B&W in a different way than color photos. --cart-Talk 22:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Anyone who's passed through the Hudson Yards station since it was opened a couple of years ago has recognized how photogenic it is (I have some I haven't processed yet) compared to other New York subway stops; while I think cart has some good points I am OK with what we have now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for nomination, votes and comments. I made a small adjustment of the images.--ArildV (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome! --Basotxerri (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- weak Oppose Really nice... but unbalanced (left stairs) :( - Benh (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The station has four elevators so you can not get a centered composition.--ArildV (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning weak oppose - I liked this as a thumbnail, but at full size I struggle with the noise and sharpness in some areas. Kind of wish the focus were a little higher up, and that you had asked the person in the background to wait just a minute before getting on the escalator :) ). — Rhododendrites talk | 05:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't mind the man, but otherwise, good but not great, IMO, per Rhododendrites. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not liking it being off-centre, the man at the top and too much is blurred. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the quality ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination A pity, it seems that it's not as good as I thought. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to let the nomination active until the nomination ends by time. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It wants perfect symmetry. Very close but no cigar. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Galapagos land iguana 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 19:13:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Bgag (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose not FP in sharpness, exposure or composition. Charles (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Going with Charles here. It's good, I'm just not so sure it's great.--Peulle (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Sharpness of the head is good. Composition has strong points and weak points. The crop is a bit clumsy, but the front leg with that human-shaped hand is interesting. Ok for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not human-shaped. Reptiles do not have opposable thumbs like primates. Charles (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Though I wear similar gloves to do the washing up :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad Angle, composition --The Photographer 02:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support Considering the other criticisms, I like the textures enough to forgive the shallow DoF. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Sharp enough for me, nice subject, and I find the composition good enough, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support Per Daniel Case. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral The subject is interesing, but I know the place and it is pretty easy to photograph these iguanas. I agree with The Photographer about the angle and I also believe that the image is too small, detail is not bad but this level of detail (same species) would be really a plus to me. --Poco2 08:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Slanské vrchy 002.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2018 at 18:56:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
- Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- I really like this, the intense blues, the ground-to-sky view drawing you upwards, and the way the ice/snow covered tree tops contrast with the blues. PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the idea, but there's that awkward crop in the upper middle and the dark area at lower left. Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't feel like this perspective distortion works.--Peulle (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Swallows in Ohrid, Macedonia.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 12:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Hirundinidae (swallows)
- Info created by BrankaVV - uploaded by BrankaVV - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Messy composition for me (and blurred flying birds). Charles (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- The blurred flying birds can be cloned out.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles. If this was a shot of three diagonal parallel wires, it could be a really funny and interesting picture. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, not a really interesting photo, no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Patterns of birds on wires can be great compositions, but this one isn't really doing it for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Syzygium fruit.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 05:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_and_raw_vegetables
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent portrait of what's called jambu air in Malay, and for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of eating this fruit, try it whenever you're in a country that grows it. It's tart, crunchy, watery (air is Malay for water) and refreshing in hot weather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose All food/product photos on FPC must be focus stacked with at least a dozen frames. Minimum. Ok, only joking. I don't find the arrangement very appetising with a plain white plate on a white table. And the lighting generates deep hard shadows. A QI, but not what I'd expect from our best food photography. -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin--Ermell (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The white plate on white background looks too clinical for me. I don't understand this way of presenting so many food shots on white boring bowls or plates. With all the fantastic hand crafted things in Laos, surely you could get hold of a basket, wooden bowl or something more in tone with the leaves and fruits. I can understand if this is done to get a neutral color for some food, but in this photo all such reason is lost since it is shot in a yellowish afternoon light. --cart-Talk 12:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- The reason why I used a simple plate is basically to indicate that this fruit is edible. Without element of this kind, how to guess that one can eat it, really ? It's such a rare fruit, most of the people have never seen it, neither in a shop nor in a book. Then, putting it in a plate (and most of the plates are traditionally white, like glasses are transparent) gives an extra information on the product, I think -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is always a balance between making and informative photo or an aesthetic. On Wikipedia FP the informative wins and on Commons FP aesthetics are usually held in higher regard. Btw, placing something on a white plate doesn't guarantee that you should eat it. :) --cart-Talk 15:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone should take a picture of some Tide detergent pods on a white plate with some appealing sides and condiments. No, they shouldn't. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, Cart, they are exceptions. And always a balance between what is common and what is less. So, one is free to add this counterexample in the Category:Plates_with_fruits to make the exception :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question - It's a rare fruit in Laos? Unless something fairly cataclysmic happened since the last time I was in Malaysia in 2003, it's not rare at all there! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a rare fruit, and if it was not, you would certainly not have described the taste and the consistance for the readers who have never tasted it. This is not a mango, a pineapple, or a coconut, this is rarer. I'm not saying the syzygium samarangense cannot be found in some specific places, I'm just saying it's not widespread in the world. Laos included (although it can grow here). Not common in the markets, neither in small or big cities. Cherimoya, dragonfruit, jackfruit, or durian are also exotic, but surely better known, through their names and appearances. If the syzygium samarangense was not so rare, it would certainly be already among the 104 other fruits identified in this list, including the kumquat, the longan, the jabuticaba, and the nance. And do we know all of them ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Colin. As appealing as it may have been at the time, the warm light does the food no favors; it makes it look a bit stale. And the shadow is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Three green leaves, three green supports, four red fruits, four red opposes. Next time I'll adjust the ratio :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Vitoria - Jardín Botánico Olarizu - Hoja 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2018 at 08:03:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, it's not working for me. The leaf just sits there, and the ice is not helping me move my eye around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Please add a category above. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support For me, the composition emphasizes the fragility of the fallen leaf. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I rather like the thumbnail and was going to support with a different crop (16:9, cutting the top). Unfortunately when opening it at full size, I am rather disappointed by the quality, not as exceptional as I would expect (sharpness, depth of field). So this is a regretful oppose, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow. Perhaps if more snow was in focus there would be more sparkles. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Colin, just a note. Sparkles in snow are not related to focus but to the viewing angle of reflected light. It is damn hard to get any surface of snow to sparkle more since those infernal snow flakes/crystals are angled in all directions. I have tried several times and failed... :( The only way is to have light sources from different angles, which is not practical outddors. Perversely, you get a grander "lightshow" with snow reflections out of focus since they then "bloom" and become larger bokeh blobs. Example or pixelpeep this. --cart-Talk 10:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Cart, looking at this image, the out-of-focus sparkles are dimmer. I guess the same amount of light is spread over a wider area than if in focus. Perhaps then the problem here is the snow is not in bright light, or is under exposed. Only when the sparkles are blown-out (as one would expect specular reflections of the sun to be) are they still bright enough to sparkle as bokeh blobs. I just feel a simple motive like this needs something magical going on around it, otherwise it is too ordinary. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- My comment was just a sidetrack about the general behaviour of snow, and I agree that there is probably too little light on the snow is this particular photo. --cart-Talk 11:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Cart and Colin. I think the sparkling effects depend on the type of snow, too, this one was more wet and frozen snow than recently fallen. Anyway, I'll keep on trying :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for your opinions and comments! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 16:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
- Info Altar of Our Lady at the catholic parish church Hallstatt, Upper Austria, by Lienhart Astl (signed), 1510–1520. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support great pic --Stepro (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I love the detail ... we can see the separate prong holes in the outlet on the back wall. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Stepro. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 17:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 21:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very detailed, sharp enough, no disturbing light through the windows, nothing is wrong about this photo (but it's not a super-wow for me) --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
File:The Resurrection – NG.O 477.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2018 at 17:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media#Religion
- Info created by Master of the Třeboň Altarpiece – uploaded by Draceane – nominated by Draceane — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support High quality, high historical value. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Colors look a little washed out. I presume that's actually the case? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
* Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jebulon, sorry! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Badly cropped.--Jebulon (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This is actual size of the altarpiece. Only the cracked edge of the painting was removed. — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jebulon. You cropped off the arm of the sentinel in the lower left. That is indeed a bad crop. Cropping the margins of a painting that are painted on, just because they are damaged, is a kind of falsification and certainly damages this painting's composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/
File:Henningsvär-Lofoten-Norge.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2018 at 10:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Norway
- Info created by LG Nyqvist - uploaded by LG Nyqvist - nominated by User:LG Nyqvist -- LG Nyqvist (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- LG Nyqvist (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Picturesque and interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting subject and I can see from the weather that the light wasn't optimal that day, but the fish is a bit too dark for my taste. Oppose for now. Might reconcider if something happens. --cart-Talk 13:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Might work if it was either a) a tighter look at the drying fish or b) the landscape. As it is it's fighting with itself. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with above. I've indicated a 2:1 crop I think works better. More landscape and the fish then seem to hang bizarrely down from the heavens. I cropped the struts on the right, to give the boat space to sail on. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment With the benefit of hindsight I would have dropped the camera about a foot + lower and had the fish in the top half and the view in the bottom. The tops too heavy. Very difficult shot because the trawler makes it, and there was no time for you to work on the composition. However even with that flaw its unique, a rare image. You did well to see it and take it. The crop might work... --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Neptuul (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support There isn't anything I don't like about this photograph.--RaboKarbakian (talk)
- Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 19:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Its grown on me. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Lagartija de lava de San Cristóbal (Microlophus bivittatus), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 22.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2018 at 20:46:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Info Exemplar of a San Cristóbal lava lizard (Microlophus bivittatus), Punta Pitt, San Cristóbal Island (to where it's endemic), Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Poco2 20:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 20:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I find the crop too large. Most of this rocks and dark background are not in focus, though they occupy a considerable space on the image. The reptile is quite nice, but I find frustrating it is shot from behind, as if it was turning its back on us -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I feel that there is unfortunately not enough contrast between the lizard and the rocks for this to be a great photo, though of course the camouflage is by design and it's certainly a useful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile. If cropped in more on the lizard, and the highlights suppressed a bit, it might be more striking, but it might then be too small. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 13:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Zayapa (Grapsus grapsus), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 84.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 13:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
- Info Exemplar of red rock crab (Grapsus grapsus), Punta Pitt, San Cristobal Island, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. All by me, Poco2 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unsharp background might be acceptable, but the foreground is also quite unsharp. I think you could improve the picture by cropping out the most aggressively blurred part of the foreground in the lower left, and that might be enough for me to reconsider, though I don't guarantee that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think the DoF is deep enough here. Also, the shine from the reflection above the crab creates some disturbing light, especially because of the white spots on the shell sine this then reduces the contrast.--Peulle (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I love the crab, but the sparkly blurred bokeh is, while beautiful in its own way, too abundant not to distract. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Poco2 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
File:San Francisco Cable Car on Hyde Street.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 05:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose For me, the lighting is far from ideal with half the photo being in shadow and the rest in strong light. Also the crop feels too tight, somehow.--Peulle (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I think it's great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Cropped too tight. Yann (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I love this shot. --Mile (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Cropped too tight. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Cropped too tight. -- KTC (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Background is somewhat messy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2018 at 23:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info The grivet is a type of vervet monkey that you can only find in the Horn of Africa. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 10:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2018 at 10:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very nice light revealing the structure of the wings in a way you don't see very often. Also a good repetition with the plant in the background. Luck and patience, the two best tools in any photographer's kit. --cart-Talk 11:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Granada (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support MZaplotnik(talk) 15:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I appreciate that the plant is very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very sharp photo! Unfortunately the flower was not in bloom, but still ThayneT (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- I observed that the butterflies do not nectar on fully open flowers. Charles (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support just some niggles, u have a big dead pixel on the bottom right, and I'm not sure why the background has faint colour blotches (compression?). - Benh (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Benh: You have to sign your vote to make it legit, please.--cart-Talk 11:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- red mark removed. Not a dead pixel, but no idea what it was. Not on previous or next image. Charles (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2018 at 12:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Yes. I had this on my list of possible nominees, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 15:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Of course. For perfection, you could remove a small spot in the sky (insect/bird). --Basotxerri (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I saw this bird, but chose to keep it. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Granada (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Bgag (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent composition and use of cool tones. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Dark clouds and sunshine together, a good combination --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't want to be a spoilsport and I don't object to the above support votes at all, but having looked at this one for a while now, there's just something about it that doesn't feel like it's FP to me. Beautiful nature shots abound on Commons, and I'm just not entirely convinced that this is one of the best ones out there.--Peulle (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I would hang a calendar with this picture on my wall. --Stepro (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very nice image, a chance to identify the tree? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Didn't manage yet, but will keep searching. Thanks ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great. --Code (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 08:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose What kind of tree is it? Its a pretty picture but what value is the content? Where is it? ThayneT (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- All excellent photos are valuable to the project according to Commons:Featured picture candidates#General rules, section 7: "...a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images..." The location is stated very clearly in the file's description with geocoding. Who knows, maybe 50 years from now someone is writing an article about this particular place and wants a photo of how it looked in this era. We don't know what will become valuable in the future, so we collect everything. --cart-Talk 18:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Halavar (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2018 at 15:10:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
- Info I'd like to take another shot with this hook since the original nom was just one vote from making FP. This is a completely new processing from two other raw photos from the same session as the first nomination. Different aperture and also a bit focus stacked, that's why I uploaded it as a different file and not just overwriting the first. The first nom was actually the very first raw photo I ever processed, and I thought it was cool, exiting, I believed it to be great, but I really had no idea what I was doing. Well, I've learned a trick or three since then. It is still sinister-looking and "dark" but in a different way. It's sharper and this time the hook really pops. Let's see what you think. viewing soundtrack :-) All by me, -- cart-Talk 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well done! I love focus stacked images!. --Granada (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Why the messy background bottom right? Charles (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- The background is a steel door in the old workshop. The right side is where the handle is and many, many dirty welders' hands have pushed at that part of the door through the years. Some other photos from the same place are these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It's not a very clean place. --cart-Talk 17:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Since you have manipulated the images anyway, there could be an argument to wipe the marks clean! Charles (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I could also re-paint the hook to make it totally yellow. :) You're just using my disclosure to make snide comments for some reason. --cart-Talk 18:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not at all. Sorry if I gave the impression that manipulation was snide. I love the quality of the focus stacking and there's nothing wrong with it. Charles (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I supported it a year ago and I still like the photo. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This doesn't really speak to me, though I enjoyed ZZ Ward's music, so thanks for that. I won't stand in the way of this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support A very sharp and detailed photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Despite all the enthusiasm for one's own work, don't forget that this is a picture for an encyclopedia. Who manufactured the hook and where and why is it hanging there? --Ermell (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, fortunately the maker's mark is stamped on the hook and I've added that to the description. The use of it is actually in the title, but I've elaborated somewhat on it in the description. In a mechanical workshop, a hook hanging from a bridge crane is about as common and versatile as a hammer or a wrench. And don't forget that I'm also enthusiastic about other people's work, your's included. ;) --cart-Talk 08:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I don't forget :) --Ermell (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not tell me anything --LG Nyqvist (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Exactly the same comment as the first time! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Perfect sharpness, background, and contrast. --Yann (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2018 at 05:18:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United States
- Info created by Aruns76 - uploaded by Aruns76 - nominated by Daniel Case
- Support Another finalist in WLM USA 2017, which I thought highly of as a juror. -- Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I'd like to see the rest of the semicircle, but that's a very good composition as is, and I definitely think it belongs as an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Yes, it still waves. --cart-Talk 11:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 15:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I have my doubts that this is a QI, but it does have wow! --Poco2 22:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Interesting composition, lines and shapes. Very graphic -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support interesting Albertus teolog (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Premios Goya 2018 - Marta Torné.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 06:34:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created & uploaded by Carlos Delgado - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - This is one of a series of photos of the 32nd Goya Awards Kadellar uploaded to QIC, and so far, I consider it the best one from this series that I've seen. The model is beautiful, takes a nice and somewhat atypical pose, the photo's quality is quite good and the photo is well-composed. I'll be interested to see whether you agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I find the background logos etc. ruin this type of photo. Charles (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Charles on this one. She is very beautiful and the pose is good but she is standing so close to the wall with all the logos that not only do the logos intrude on the portrait (especially since there is such a variety of them, just one logo repeated is better since it forms a pattern) but she also seems crammed up against the wall. In photos like in Category:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2017 or this photo from the same event as the one in the nom, the subjects were standing a bit away from the wall and it was possible for the photographer to blurr the logos with a shallow DoF. --cart-Talk 11:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - It's interesting to see what bugs people, and thanks for talking me through that. There are things that bug me that don't bug you, too. I really don't care much about bits and pieces of promotional material, even though they aren't an integral part of the composition the way [I didn't mean "they want"] the words in newspaper clippings are in a collage by Picasso. If this becomes a deal-breaker, so be it; at least I tried. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, at such an event that's what the companies are paying for: their logo being seen next to a celebrity. As is that fantastic, very expensive haute couture dress she is wearing, on loan from Gabriel Lage. She might even have been payed to wear it; that is not uncommon when designers are competing to be seen at such events. --cart-Talk 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't stand out to me compared to all the other photos of well-dressed, attractive female celebrities at events where they pose in front of backdrops full of sponsors' names that the Internet is replete with. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination - No point in dragging this out. Thanks to all who commented. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Ikkeri temple 04092016.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 02:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nikhil B -- Nikhil B (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Nikhil B (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good motif, poor lighting, IMO, and the sharpness is not overwhelming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. Building is sharp but tower is not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is not anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Basketball, 1. Damen-Basketball-Bundesliga, ChemCats Chemnitz LR10 by Stepro IMG 7684.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 05:45:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Stepro
- Support -- Stepro (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I liked this in QIC. I have no idea what others will think - the results of nominations of portrait photos at FPC are so unpredictable. The background may be a little too bright, but the subject is a beautiful woman, the idea of her kissing her basketball to metaphorically show love for the game is a good one, and she also shows off her powerful muscles in this pose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment hehe - then you probably might like this photo of Jessica Diggins kissing her skis: File:20180128_FIS_NC_WC_Seefeld_Jesscia_Diggins_850_3411.jpg --Granada (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Tight crop on the right, but yeah, that's a fun photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately I only have one body and had the 70-200 f/2.8 mounted to capture the final sprint, so at 70mm she stood too near to us photographers to capture her complete with her left arm. The others with two bodies had 300mm for the sprint and a 24-70 for the shots in the finish zone. --Granada (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm disappointed that you're not quite a miracle worker. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I do miracles only from Monday through Friday - this was shot on a lazy Sunday afternoon. :) --Granada (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Then you're off the hook. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support crop's a bit tight, but still... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I mind this crop, especially background (white-white). Otherwise QI. --Mile (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question @Stepro: Isn't there any way to get a few more rows of pixels on either side? It's great portrait per what Ikan said, but for me this crop is really tight. --cart-Talk 09:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was talking about the crop in the linked photo of Jessica Diggins. This crop isn't too tight for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I know you were, Ikan. :) But I'm only talking about the crop in this nom. I was "per" your description of the woman in the photo. --cart-Talk 11:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I am more bothered by above and bottom crop, than sides. --Mile (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Yes, I could add a little left and right. But:
- a) either the headroom would be too big or the aspect ratio would change
- b) the image cut is just as intended to emphasize her body length --Stepro (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think her body length will still be visible with a little more "air" to either sides, and photos don't have to have standard ratios. It's your call though. --cart-Talk 12:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a particularly impressive photo - it's just a normal shot. No "wow".--Peulle (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 13:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Granada (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Left and right crops are too tight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Not bad, but crop too tight, as per King of Hearts. Yann (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per King of Hearts. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- weak support crop is unfortunate, but still support. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 11:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#New Zealand
- Info created & uploaded by Krzysztof Golik - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Sharpness isn't optimal on the sides, particularly the left side, but I think it's good enough. Beautiful scene and I really like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Wow, per Ikan --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support- Irvin calicut (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very pretty. --A.Savin 09:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - stunning scenery. --СССР (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support This is just great -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Halavar (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Fujifilm SUPERIA 200.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 08:26:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others 2
- Info Fujifilm SUPERIA 200. My work. --Mile (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose A bit too simple a subject to reach "wow" for FP. The grey background is not evenly lit. An angled view would be more interesting (like this) but still not enough to make my heart race :-). -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin but really good technical realisation. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 09:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Much to admire, but not an FP. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I see your point, Colin, but for me, that is a question of taste and of the photographer's intention. You are about to compare this picture with a picture that was shot for marketing purposes. This picture here is a kind of encyclopedic brutalism, isn't it? If yes, it is a really good one. Therefore, I would like to support Mile's nomination. --Sputniktilt (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 08:53:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created by Poco_a_poco - uploaded by Poco_a_poco - nominated by Vathlu -- Vathlu (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Vathlu (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - It's a great photo, and I think it deserves a feature, but I'd like to point out that there are already 2 photos of this interior featured on Commons: File:Palacio de Golestán, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 27-36 HDR PAN.jpg and File:Palacio de Golestán, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 37-39 HDR.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- I genuinely did not know that. --Vathlu (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support As there was some criticism last time about the non rectiliniar projection (first nom linked by Ikan) I am curious here. Thank you for the nom, Vathlu Poco2 10:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- No problem, in my opinion it deserves to be featured but let's see what will happen. --Vathlu (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I realise you must have been struggling with the WB (warm and cold lights) but it feels like it's a bit shifted toward the greens here (maybe that's just how it is...). - Benh (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not really sure, Benh, I uploaded a version with a WB adjustment and also improved the bottom crop. I guess that the lighting and WB depends strongly on the rays of light coming thru the windows, --Poco2 22:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 08:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Stained_glass
- Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- User:Ввласенко (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support beautifully evenly lit --Stepro (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 11:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - This is just beautiful and relaxing to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful frozen trees --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the more panoramic crop soggestion (there's useless blue as it is IMO), but nonetheless, that picture is gorgeous. - Benh (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I think a panoramic crop (also losing a little off the bottom) would increase the beauty. Charles (talk)
- Support Sky's a little bit noisy but ... I can't let that stop me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support- Irvin calicut (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support-- Rajesh Odayanchal (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I would prefer the suggested crop --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing wrong with the crop. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I like the crop proposal too, thank you. I also tried to reduce the noise a bit.--Ermell (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the crop improves the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 13:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Note: he is not 100% tack sharp at 100%, but I did not want to downscale the image. That day he had just won the ski jumping competition and was nearly one minute ahead of Akito Watabe, so he was in thoughts about his win and probably about how his strategy for the upcoming race two hours later. -- Granada (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- More than sharp enough. You are actually recommended in the guidelines to downscale images of people to avoid embarassment (see comment below). Charles (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think that part of the guidelines was written before we had high-definition television and BlueRay. We are more used to seeing every beard stubble on folks now. --cart-Talk 09:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Almost too sharp, as it is (we can see what looks like a scab over a former pimple on his face). I like his facial expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support great pic --Stepro (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support fine and sharp enough--Isiwal (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I like the combination of that intent stare and that slightly off smile. It may not be anything like what was going on when the picture was taken, but it looks like he's thinking "Nice to meet you ... now let's go out and compete so I can kick your ass". Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice capture. Ahh, to be young again and full of hope... --cart-Talk 09:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I fail to see what is so special about this image. The quality is fair enough, but it's just a standard portrait, there's no wow going on.--Peulle (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think there are at least 3 good reasons for this picture being featured. 1) Excellent quality, high resolution, right focus, sharp image and low ISO. 2) Portrait of a sportman in situation, with technical equipment, special clothes, badges and sponsors. 3) Famous personality present in at least 10 different languages of Wikipedia : Jarl Magnus Riiber. Then definitely an important shot IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- For me, the situation is unimpressive. If the guy was just crossing the line of an important race, or jumping for joy on the podium, I'd agree that there was something special going on. In this case, it's just a portrait, and I don't agree that such images should be hailed as the finest on Commons. If we did, we'd be saying that any good image of an athlete is exceptional, and I don't think it is.--Peulle (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Peulle, this is for 'People#Portrait' and it sounds like you are confusing it with 'Sports'. Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait. No one in that section is crossing or jumping anything, it is "just" very good head shots of peoples from different walks of life. And even if you stated above that such photos ("it's just a portrait") should not be hailed as the finest on Commons, there are a lot of them. A portrait is about capturing a subject sharp, in good lighting, with a good expression, preferably with something that relates to the person or in a situation where the person is in his/hers element. I'd say this ticks all those boxes. --cart-Talk 09:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, except that FP is about something more than technical quality.--Peulle (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, and IMO this has that extra that falls under good expression and situation. --cart-Talk 10:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 14:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info Many thanks to the farmer who did this "art installation". :) I shot it from every angle I could think of (all photos are here) and this "creme puff version" turned out best IMO. All by me, -- cart-Talk 14:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 14:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support This is a nice subject, a nice line and it is a good image but there still is something that is missing, something that would make it a bit more special, or what I would try to make differently. Although I can't tell exactly why and what. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- As usual you make me think. :) I had this other version (now uploaded) with more sky that I think feels airier and the sky matches the bales better, but I wasn't sure if the square crop was ok for this landscape so I went for the above version in the end. Maybe I should re-think and go with that instead or as an alt. --cart-Talk 17:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's really strange. Although they are almost identical images, I like no. 2 better and it sounds ridiculous but compared one against the other, in no. 1 it's more like someone pushed you on the bale while in no. 2 you can breathe more profoundly. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- My personal aesthetics consultant likes no. 1 better :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Basotxerri: Haha! Well, I'm quite fond of the square where you can breathe, so I guess "Alt" it is. Please pick one (if possible). :) --cart-Talk 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support But I am also OK with the uncropped version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you changed the FP category. I wasn't sure if this should go in 'Objects' since there is also a good deal of landscape, but if you say so... --cart-Talk 19:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support This is the better of the two images. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support - Mild preference for the alt. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Alternative
edit- Support --cart-Talk 17:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support At last it's time to breathe! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support this one too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per A.Savin. Tomer T (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I like both images. I like that my eyes are more drawn to the end of the line of bales in this one, rather than the ones right in front of me in the original. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Vista de Reikiavik desde el Paseo de la Bahía, Distrito de la Capital, Islandia, 2014-08-13, DD 150-153 PAN.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2018 at 08:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info Panoramic view of Reykjavik and the Atlantic Ocean during sunset seen from the Shore Walk, Capital Region, Iceland. The city concentrates, with 123,300 inhabitants, 35% of the country population and was founded in around AD 870 by norwagian settlers. Poco2 08:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 08:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Nice work, but the stitching errors should be fixed.--Ermell (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I will, Ermell, give me a few hours and I'll uploade a new version --Poco2 10:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The problem with many extremely wide panoramas is that most of it doesn't contain anything interesting. It is funny that like Christian's image below, I am drawn to the right side sunset for a crop, though here you actually have the resolution to crop and create an interesting photo. I've highlighted an approximate area that looks very nice like a painting (there may be several possible crops and aspect ratios around this area). But for the whole work, as a composition it isn't working for me. The arc of dark bay and grass is rather boring, and the buildings along the front near us are also disappointingly boring offices. There may be some more interesting buildings further along, but they are really tiny. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Colin: I have cropped the bottom a bit --Poco2 13:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support What is interesting about this picture is the limitation to a few colours due to the reflective sunlight in the window panes and the almost identical light intensity of the street lighting. The skyline of course lacks the full moon :-) Poc The stitching ist still slightly visible.--Ermell (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ermell: Stitching issues are now definitely cleaned up --Poco2 20:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I like the way it gives a subarctic city an almost tropical feel. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too long aspect ratio and boring composition overall. - Benh (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I agree that this is not the most picturesque view, but at full size, I like the light and detail enough to consider it worthy of a feature. I didn't expect to support until I "pixel-peeped" at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
OpposeMotif and ratio are outstanding and the whole image is very interesting for me.But the horizon isn´t straight enough for a FP in my eyes.--Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)- Milseburg: I have "fixed" the horizon in the way I imagine you expect it, but to me this kind of things are not so obvious as one could think, as the water level depends also on the distance and if there is a shore I don't expect the level to be as high as in open sea. Well, whatever, please, have a look -- Poco2 13:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support The horizon on the right side was tilted. Now it´s neraby perfect, except of the outmost end. But I want to stop niggling. Don´t cut away anything. The right part is the highlight for me. --Milseburg (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support MZaplotnik(talk) 11:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Cutting this picture in two halves, the right part has nothing interesting and is not of good quality (see sea). The left part is ok, but is the content interesting enough for a FP ? With the whole, I'm not amazed -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 04:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Malvales
- Info Cochlospermum regium (yellow cotton tree), flower with praying mantis, Laos.
These flowers are huge and quite impressive by their bright color, but difficult to shoot because located high in the tree. Since this specimen is the only one with such appearance in the Category:Cochlospermum_regium on Commons, I was not convinced about the species, but Google seems to confirm this is the right name for this flower, as well as the main illustration on the Thai wikipedia page, where it is the provincial flower of several provinces. Created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC) - Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Beautiful blossom but the mantis is shown simply too insignificant--Ermell (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The mantis is maybe not essential but IMO gives an interesting indication on the size of the flower -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The off-center stem, if that's what that is in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 17:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Remarkable. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't really get it. It's a good photo for sure, with nice light, rather peaceful, but the sky and water are a little too static for me to consider it a great composition. I have at no point been tempted to oppose this photo, but I also haven't found a reason to support, and I feel like I may have missed something that's causing some of you to find this a truly exceptional photo. So if anyone would like to tell me what they are seeing, I might learn something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: you're probably Neutral :-) But to tell you what I appreciate here, subjectively, it is the nice mirror effect of that contrasted bridge in the water, and the invitation to follow the path like on a marked road, without handrails. Mysteriously, why is this footbridge here and where does it lead to ? Invitation to walk along -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- I get that. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - sweet!! Atsme 📞 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 08:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2018 at 19:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Natural satellites
- Info As requested, this is the supermoon playing peekaboo with the Walkie-Talkie. I like to think that somone one that floor is looking out their window at an enormous moon. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Ah!! Yes, yes, yes! Reason given in a previous nom. This can be seen two ways: Like the moon is playing peekaboo with the population in some kind of crazy Duckburg city, OR "there is something super big breaking the surface and coming up behind you!". Btw, I was surprised to find that the Moon doesn't have its own FP category like the Sun has. "Natural satellites"... tsk, tsk, mumble, mumble... --cart-Talk 19:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 21:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Stepro (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I find this composition much more interesting than the other picture. I love how the Walkie-Talkie continues to get wider as it goes up; excellent crop, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very creative. Wow there is. --A.Savin 07:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support peekaboo! :) --Peulle (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great wow factor. But wait - hasn't the moon to appear in front of the clouds according to Peter Lik? ;-) --Granada (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support of course! —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral This doesn't work with the moon this small. I guess 600mm would be the lowest I try to shoot this with. - Benh (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC) - Benh (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- I realised, as soon as I reached the viewing area on top of the Tate Modern, that I was way too close to the buildings to make much use of the 500mm, and the security guards were absolutely not letting me get my tripod out. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Colin: I'm afraid that wouldn't have changed anything if you've remained on same spot. You'd have only gained resolution. - Benh (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK to be more specific: you'd have gotten a crop of this, but with more resolution. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Benh, yes, that's what's I meant by the first half of the sentence. The limited scope to move about, compared to being on the bank of the Thames, also meant I couldn't change the viewing angle. However, I'm happy to have got some shots of the city & moon, and people seem to like this fairly-large moon image. The enormous moon photos are fun, and certainly something to try, but also not very realistic and I do wonder if any are sharp/detailed enough to please FPC. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- If it doesn't please FPC, it would mean it's different, original and... fun :) and am very curious if you could get such a shot. I think it is no less realistic that any shot here. Just a different, non boring point of view that you get by cleverly choosing ur shooting point and time. And for some reason, when the moon rises (or sets) near the horizon, it looks quite big to me. So that would catch that feeling just about right I think. - Benh (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Benh, you are referring to the Moon illusion. But even then, a 500mm lens on my camera is 750mm full-frame and like the page I linked produces scenes no eye can quite realise, which is why I say it isn't realistic, but in the same way as an extreme macro of a fly isn't realistic -- one can't see such scenes. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- If it doesn't please FPC, it would mean it's different, original and... fun :) and am very curious if you could get such a shot. I think it is no less realistic that any shot here. Just a different, non boring point of view that you get by cleverly choosing ur shooting point and time. And for some reason, when the moon rises (or sets) near the horizon, it looks quite big to me. So that would catch that feeling just about right I think. - Benh (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Benh, yes, that's what's I meant by the first half of the sentence. The limited scope to move about, compared to being on the bank of the Thames, also meant I couldn't change the viewing angle. However, I'm happy to have got some shots of the city & moon, and people seem to like this fairly-large moon image. The enormous moon photos are fun, and certainly something to try, but also not very realistic and I do wonder if any are sharp/detailed enough to please FPC. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK to be more specific: you'd have gotten a crop of this, but with more resolution. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Colin: I'm afraid that wouldn't have changed anything if you've remained on same spot. You'd have only gained resolution. - Benh (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I realised, as soon as I reached the viewing area on top of the Tate Modern, that I was way too close to the buildings to make much use of the 500mm, and the security guards were absolutely not letting me get my tripod out. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Stunning but not perfect. The moon as an impotant element of this image seems to be overexposed. It´wouldn't be so difficult to paste a moon with a better exposure time. I don´t share the hype about the "supermoon" --Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- "Paste a moon"? After this? If we suggest such things we're no better than Peter Lik. Exposure bracketing is one thing and it doesn't work here since the moon is moving too fast, but pasting sounds a bit too rich for me in a photo like this. --cart-Talk 11:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- If there are several elements in an image requiring a different exposure for a natural impression, it is not fake to compose these elements in a differentiated way. I´m sure that pure eyes got another impression here then presented. --Milseburg (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Milseburg, the moon wasn't over-exposed wrt brightness -- there was plenty headroom in the raw file and no clipping. A shorter exposure might be marginally sharper because the moon is moving and the atmosphere this close to the ground makes it especially wobbly. I have another with half the exposure time (though twice the iso) that is not sharper. You aren't really going to get a sharp image of the moon this close to the horizon and any moon you see that is sharp and near the horizon is a fake. Peter Lik's stupid image not only has clouds impossibly behind the moon, but has the moon super sharp and crisp -- something that can only be achieved on the clearest day with the moon high and by merging many dozens of frames and applying special sharpening techniques. And then of course upper-sky moon is the wrong colour and the wrong brightness for low-sky. The moon is the brightest element in this scene and I wanted to retain that, to have it glow on your monitor rather than looking like someone had stuck on a circular piece of paper. When one photographs the moon higher in the black sky, like File:Moon 2017-02-17 UK.jpg, one can arrange for it to be any brightness you like, though that is far less bright than it was to the eye. The moon close to the ground, in the blue hour, can be photographed with one exposure quite satisfactorily and realistically. Once it gets higher up, it is as bright as the daylight on sand, and that's when one has to play tricks like pasting in another exposure if you need to preserve the exposure on a dark land. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don´t think that your moon is blown out, but i´ts too bright in my eyes. Structures on the lunar surface such as the lunar mare are slightly outshone and less recognizable than I know from observations with own eyes. This image some supermoons before over another capital city is showing the moon more detailed and naturaly, without beeing a fake. --Milseburg (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I liked it as soon as I saw it in Flickr. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Picture of the Year candidate. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 15:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Passo Sella - Città dei Sassi - 13.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2018 at 15:24:45 (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) 15:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the composition doesn't work for me. I'm missing some clear subject, some lines or some guided view over the landscape. Instead, there are trees and rocks that give me more impression of obstacles. However, did I mention that indicating all these peaks and mountain saddles on your image is a really good job? --Basotxerri (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Might work for me with some crops in on both sides. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - The crop that looks really helpful to me would cut off about half the incline on the right. I think that would make the picture feature-worthy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I think its the wrong time of day- too much overhead light, no real subject or foreground ThayneT (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Better than the alternative version. The alternative is claustrophobic in comparison. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Alternative
edit
Crop as suggested per Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek --Llez (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Maybe because you cropped the left so much, I think the right has to be cropped more. I'll try indicating a suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Noted on the file page for the alternate file. Please delete the note soon, because your photo is annotated with informative labels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done --Llez (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sure where you're up to with this crop. The feeling of big space is completely lost here. - Benh (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment It was not my idea, see the comments of the first version --Llez (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Now take a bit off the top ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Worse, the other photo was at least more scenic ThayneT (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Elderly refugee portrait captured in Khazer frontline camp. Northern Iraq, Western Asia-2. 10 November, 2016.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2018 at 10:47:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created & uploaded by Mstyslav Chernov - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support was already promoted, but then removed because of sockpuppetry. -- Tomer T (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Like before. --cart-Talk 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support MZaplotnik(talk) 11:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The sharpness is not ideal, especially on his left eye. Also the crop on the left border is a bit tight.--Peulle (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Very expressive face but unfortunately the focus is not on the eyes.--Ermell (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I see no reason to change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support per previous FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Peulle and Ermell. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basotxerri --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice portrait. --Yann (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose as explained in the previous nom Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Elderly_refugee_portrait_captured_in_Khazer_frontline_camp._Northern_Iraq,_Western_Asia-2._10_November,_2016.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF is too small --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Momotxorroen irteera, Altsasu 2018.webm, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 23:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
- Info created by Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Theklan (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - That's quite interesting, but there's no documentation or even title at the beginning of the clip to explain what I react to as something like a bizarro Halloween parade, and some of the camera work is jerky, as is the sudden ending. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Documentation on the clip? In what language? It includes a description in the file, inserting texts in a video is not a good option. -Theklan (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No texts or explanations, shaky camera, cuts/scene changes abrupt and jerky. Sorry, this is not one of the finest videos on Commons. --cart-Talk 10:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Texts or explanations can't be in the video, as Commons is a multilanguage project. -Theklan (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Theklan: Yes, it's a multilanguage project and that means that all languages are accepted, not the other way around that no language is ok. The best way is to have the texts in some major language, such as Spanish like in this FP video. In this one the texts are in English and in this you got both Spanish and English. If the clip is short and just shows one specific thing like this, there is no need for texts since it has a good description linked to Wikipedia articles. Your video didn't even have that, I added that to the file's description. Your video is like a small documentary and for those it is best to have some kind of text explain what's going on, like it's done in this one. For your film you could have made something like this (but in Spanish): "Momotxorro" /cut/ "at the Carnival of Alsasua" /cut/ --film-- /cut/ "Each year at the carnival" /cut/ "people dress up as Momotxorro" /cut/ "an imaginary being, half man and half bull" /cut/ --film-- /cut/ "Film by Theklan" /cut/ "Filmed in Basque Country 2018". If you are making a video for FPC, it is always best to have a look at the vidoes that are FP already. --cart-Talk 09:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Theklan: They can't be in the video inline, yes, but the TimedText layer exists for that reason. It would be most helpful here. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose
I have one simple question: wtf?O.k., then per W.Carter. --Granada (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Granada, that is not a constructive, civilized or legit reason for an oppose. Please refrain from using simple quips as rationell and leave a real review even if it's just a "per XXX". Think about how you yourself would react if you got such a vote. --cart-Talk 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan's well-argued review.--Peulle (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose If the idea is to document the effects of taking certain hallucinogens, or the sort of psychedelic hallucinatory sequence that some filmmakers are enamored of including, maybe it's featurable. But if the point is to document this parade, without any explanation otherwise, then even without the slowed-down voices and water droplets on the lens, it doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too slow. Boring -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Stray German Shepherd Dog.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 18:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
- Info created by Satdeep Gill - uploaded by Satdeep Gill - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough of the face is sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel.--Peulle (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but this is just not remarkable enough for me as FP. It is cute though. Btw, I happened to take a look at your talk page, lots of interesting portraits but not any that ticked all the boxes for FP (that's really difficult!), but I would love to see File:Lanterns in Rishikesh.jpg here on FPC. I would vote for it. :) --cart-Talk 19:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Alnus incana var. tenuifolia 4.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 23:52:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by ThayneT - uploaded by ThayneT - nominated by ThayneT -- ThayneT (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- ThayneT (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose A little unsharp, and not really interesting enough for FP IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- CommentUninteresting? That is typically what people think of plants, however this species on of the dominant native species throughout the western US along every single river and waterway, and is also currently in bloom. I think it is rather exciting because it means that spring is really coming, and a very appropriate photo for this time of year. ThayneT (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The burred background is too dominant in the image -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The blurred background is the only reason you can actually see the subject instead of all the things in the background. This is called isolating your subject from the background by using a wide open aperture- often necessary when taking plant photos unlike in landscape photography where you are trying to get tack sharp focus front to back. ThayneT (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think we all understand the concept of bokeh and reasons for using it here (I didn't at first, but I do now, and I think everyone else does). That's not the point. The point is that the background, although blurred, still distracts the viewer too much from the catkins. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I definitely think the catkins are an interesting enough subject, but I agree with Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 10:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info The butterfly is not that common, but is easier to find than the early marsh-orchid. Taken on the coastline of the Tagamõisa Conservation Area, Saaremaa, Estonia. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Really pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Talk about gossamer wings with structure! --cart-Talk 11:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I wish more of the wings could be (ahem) sharp, but it looks like you did all you could in that direction. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- love it!! Atsme 📞 16:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2018 at 08:17:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info Theatro del Lago in Frutillar (Chile) on Lake Llanquihue with the volcano Osorno in the background
all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I Support this photo. I wasn't sure whether to nominate it because I fear people may object to the crop of the building. However, painters routinely make such crops. I love this composition, and the stripes on the building are a big part of it but so are the lake, the snow-capped volcano in the distance and the streaming clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm on the other side; the composition isn't bad but leaves something to be desired. NR also seems excessive.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Peulle, there is no detail, --Poco2 19:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Peulle. The cloud at left and the distant mountain in particular seem to suffer from whatever processing decisions were made. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. I don't know what another crop would have given, but this works due to the mountains in the distance, cropped and shaped similarly. Nice colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support good composition, nature-/culture-balance --Neptuul (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Love it. Very nice framing! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 09:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 14:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info Semi-finalists in Senegal's 2016 0-2-year-old Wildlife Synchronised Drinking Competition. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - So cute! Don't we have an existing FP of some kind of pigs drinking? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- We do. An adult male of a different warthog subspecies.File:Southern warthog (Phacochoerus africanus sundevallii) male.jpg Charles (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Nice and very good! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment There is a strong tilt --Poco2 08:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done There was. Well spotted, thanks. Charles (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Much better and a nice one! Poco2 19:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice! I'd like to see the other semi-finalists too. ;-) --cart-Talk 09:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't get personality rights unfortunately!! Charles (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Rats... those copyright laws can be a real pain in the behind. --cart-Talk 10:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - great capture! Atsme 📞 16:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Kop Blokslootpolder (Bloksleatpolder) 22.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2018 at 16:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#The Netherlands
- Info Game of diagonal lines. Kop Blokslootpolder (Bloksleatpolder). Panorama. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 08:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not wowed, sorry. A bit boring.--Peulle (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Peulle, sorry. --Harlock81 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Peulle, sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not uninteresting, but I agree with others, it lacks something special. The tree is a bit skiny -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Battlefield in Tovačov - monument 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 09:58:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info allby Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Is this really the best angle for depicting the monument? At first glance, I thought it was an unkept, abandoned monument with plants and bushes growing from it. Light, symmetry and quality are otherwise very good. --cart-Talk 10:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion this angle is the best --Pudelek (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Even without the unfortunate "tree growing out of the monument" illusion, this is just a QI. What is "wow" about it? -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Good picture but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cart. The tree hidden behind spoils the subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I actually don't mind the tree—it sort of suggests rebirth to me, perfectly in keeping with the monument However, the trees at the side are distorted and unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 11:42:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created & uploaded by Zcebeci - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise IMO --Llez (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Llez -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Grainy and the lighting isn't very appealing. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 12:27:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by -- Ввласенко (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Do you have his permission? Intrusive photo. Charles (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Charles: I would be inclined to say that consent is not a requirement in this situation under law, at least according to the photo consent guidelines for Belgium, which states that "consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest." It was taken with a telephoto lens, I assume from a fair distance away, and the subject appears to be completely unaware of the photo, but even then I still think it doesn't constitute a breach in Wikipedia's guidelines, and therefore its eligibility for FP. WClarke 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Info I have no formal permission. The photo was taken during a public event where photos, videos and TV were produced. The participants of the event knew about this and had no objections. In my opinion, this means а tacit consent (а tacit permission). -- Ввласенко (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree with WClarke's interpretation of Belgian law and also take issue with Ввласенко's comment 'The participants of the event knew about this and had no objections'. Would you want a close-up picture of you grieving over lost friends being plastered over Wikipedia? No you wouldn't. Please show respect to the War Veteran and remove this nomination. Charles (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really see a problem here. This is a public figure taken in a public place during a public event. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment How is he a "public figure"? There is a difference between this and being a private individual in a public place. The focus of this image is clearly not the event, but the person, so unless he has given consent to being individually photographed (rather than having photos taken of many people where he is one of them), I see an issue with privacy here.--Peulle (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I could be mistaken, but I think soldiers in some sort of uniform, as well as other public servants/officials in uniform, count as public figures. In US military at least, the beret is considered a distinctive part of the uniform, signaling that you are considered an active or veteran military. [3], [4]. There is also this from the UK. And nobody complained about privacy issues in this soldier nom. --cart-Talk 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose He is not a public figure. He is not in uniform. He is not a soldier. This is not the USA. Charles (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment How is he a "public figure"? There is a difference between this and being a private individual in a public place. The focus of this image is clearly not the event, but the person, so unless he has given consent to being individually photographed (rather than having photos taken of many people where he is one of them), I see an issue with privacy here.--Peulle (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment He is a former soldier, standing in the ranks of the same former soldiers, in military headgear and with awards on the chest, and in a few minutes they will solemnly pass through the square in front of the Palais de Bruxelles. They will be greeted by the King, Government, a large number of guests and spectators. Be sure that on this day the veterans are very public figures. -- Ввласенко (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) Exactly. I was going to say that, and you express it even better. Charles: You are playing on words... Regards, Yann (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment He is a former soldier, standing in the ranks of the same former soldiers, in military headgear and with awards on the chest, and in a few minutes they will solemnly pass through the square in front of the Palais de Bruxelles. They will be greeted by the King, Government, a large number of guests and spectators. Be sure that on this day the veterans are very public figures. -- Ввласенко (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I do not think there are any legitimate legal issues with this. IMO, it's a great portrait. The man's expression says a lot with a little. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- His expression does say a lot Daniel, but it's none of our business. Charles (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Per COM:IDENT#Belgium: "Consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest, and when a person is incidentally shown in a photograph depicting some public location or event." Game, set and match as far as we all should be concerned.
I mean, really, Charles, some day PETA or some such successor organization will start arguing for all your wildlife images to be defeatured and deleted because there's no evidence you got the animal's consent, or that it's humiliating and degrading for the animal to be photographed unknowingly in the middle of a public wilderness in what it thought was going to be a private moment for it to have some emotional catharsis. Do you really want to follow this to its logical conclusion? Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't interrupt this otherwise interesting exchange with reductio ad absurdum arguments - personality rights is a real thing that should be discussed from time to time when specific cases pop up. In this case, I want to point out something you got wrong in your "game, set, match" analysis. The word "incidentally" is critical in the sentence you quoted. It does not apply to this image, since the man is not "incidentally" depicted in the photo as part of a larger setting, rather he is the main subject of the photo. There is a difference between being the only thing shown in a photo and being depicted as standing in the background as part of scene with lots of people and things going on around. In this case, we have a photo specifically taken of one person, not a photo of a big event with that person being incidentally included.--Peulle (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Peulle: Reductio it may be, but not ab absurdum ... do remember that PETA did file suit against the photographer who claims copyright over the monkey selfie, on the grounds that the macaque was entitled to it. In any event, you are making a purely moral case for this image as non-featurable, not a legal one. You and Charles are entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest that in the future you do what I do when people nominate cosplay images or lighting-display images where I do not believe local FoP covers it: just !vote oppose, state your reasons, and don't engage anyone else unless they engage you directly over this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't interrupt this otherwise interesting exchange with reductio ad absurdum arguments - personality rights is a real thing that should be discussed from time to time when specific cases pop up. In this case, I want to point out something you got wrong in your "game, set, match" analysis. The word "incidentally" is critical in the sentence you quoted. It does not apply to this image, since the man is not "incidentally" depicted in the photo as part of a larger setting, rather he is the main subject of the photo. There is a difference between being the only thing shown in a photo and being depicted as standing in the background as part of scene with lots of people and things going on around. In this case, we have a photo specifically taken of one person, not a photo of a big event with that person being incidentally included.--Peulle (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Per COM:IDENT#Belgium: "Consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest, and when a person is incidentally shown in a photograph depicting some public location or event." Game, set and match as far as we all should be concerned.
- Support per Daniel. --cart-Talk 17:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Great portrait, although I would have like a bit more space around. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Being a veteran in uniform and participating in a public manifestation makes him a public figure. Zero expectation of privacy in public event. MZaplotnik(talk) 07:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd like to support, as this is a good portrait. Can someone explain why anyone in public in Belgium would have the reasonable expectation not to be photographed? Of course I realize that a woman in Saudi Arabia would not expect to be photographed in public, so there is no universal rule on this and I don't want to inappropriately apply American standards to a Western European country, but is there really an expectation of not being photographed on the street in Belgium, especially at a highly visible public event? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- The issue for me is the close up intrusion of grief being paraded here for soemone else's reward. I say again, what might the veteran and his friends think about this? Charles (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As Charles says, the issue is not whether you should be able to avoid being photographed completely when in a public space, but when a photographer makes you his sole subject, that's another thing. On the one hand, there are famous cases like Migrant Mother, on the other hand I'd like to have heard the person's view on the matter.--Peulle (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) You don't think that his showing up and being part of this event, parading in front of all the spectators ("the King, Government, a large number of guests and spectators"), is proof enough that he is honouring his comrades and their memory in a very public way? --cart-Talk 12:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the arguments. I don't think they really directly address my question (except cart's response), and they don't convince me. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Support Good portrait of a solemn veteran in uniform -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Very good of its type. However, I don't see it as an FP. The public is bombarded worldwide with similar. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral - It's technically good, but I think it needs some additional contextual clues/details in the photo itself to be FP. Not a strong enough feeling to oppose, though, as it is a good portrait. — Rhododendrites talk | 07:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 19:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 14:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
- Info Crucifixion of Christ at the central panel of the Knappenaltar (altar of the miners) at the catholic parish church Hallstatt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master, around 1450. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Yes to more paintings, but one Question: is there a bit of barrel distortion? My eyes are telling me that the sides are curving a bit ...--Peulle (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Peulle: I checked the verticals of the frame and do not see any barrel distortion. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well. Support --Peulle (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Atsme 📞 15:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Thylacodes colubrinus 01.JPG, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 16:50:24 (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) 16:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Atsme 📞 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Interesting to see these with a background color other than gray. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Alnus incana var. tenuifolia in flower.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2018 at 04:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
- Info created by ThayneT - uploaded by ThayneT - nominated by ThayneT -- ThayneT (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- ThayneT (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the compositon with these three layers but IMO the first layer isn't sharp enough. The lighting could be more interesting, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm very sorry, but I agree with Basotxerri: a pleasant composition, but the lack of sharpness on the first layer is a serious issue. --Sputniktilt (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, please add the FPC category. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I see why there are so many Roses and Circium vulgares in the Wikimedia collection instead of actually encompassing the world's plant species. I also see that my time would be better spent elsewhere. I'm sorry you don't like my photograph of Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia, but I did have a better one I'm going to send to the WTU Image Collection, Cal Photos and the Electronic Flora of British Columbia where it will undoubtedly be the finest in their collection possibly for many years to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThayneT (talk • contribs)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 07:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Natural satellites
- Info created by Irvin Calicut - uploaded by irvin calicut - nominated by Irvin calicut -- Irvin calicut (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Irvin calicut (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Rajesh Odayanchal (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Underwhelming sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not a QI. Please see the quality expected for this category Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy. Compare for example to this File:FullMoon2010.jpg or this File:Lunar_eclipse_04-15-2014_by_R_Jay_GaBany.jpg. The level of details is really too low here -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Sharpness is not enough for QI or FP. --cart-Talk 10:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – there are simply better composed and technically superior photographs of this same eclipse in Category:Lunar eclipse of 2018 January 31. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
File:McGinnis Lake panorama1.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 00:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by СССР -- СССР (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- СССР (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Rajesh Odayanchal (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I might have supported this without the trees in front. They're nice in themselves, but they distract me from the enjoyment of the lake, reflections and clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Europese lariks (Larix decidua) op een rotswand 02.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 18:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy# Larix decidua.
- Info Stelvio National Park (Italy). European larch (Larix decidua) on a steep rock face. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Odd angle to photograph a tree. I think you've raised the blacks too much, leading to the areas that should be black being just grey. I rarely find it helpful to raise blacks at all. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really wowed, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin (again). Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 18:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose this blurred board on the left with unreadable text -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to have the whole photograph sharp. A sharp board would be disturbing. The composition is to have only the first rack sharp. --XRay talk 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- More precisely, this blurred board with unreadable text spoils the composition. Eye-catching, this element occupies the main place on the left side of the image, and thus seems to be intentionally there, whereas it's just nothing. Not interesting, not legible, not in focus. Just disturbing, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I could see how this might have seemed like it could work, but the background is too distracting. If a way could be found to make it work as just the bike rack, perhaps there is an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for now per others. Please crop out the sign. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think about an alternative in square or 4:5 aspect ratio without the sign, but I trouble to do this within the next days. I'm looking for a solution. --XRay talk 07:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I quite like the idea, but I would have stepped to the right and focused on the metal hoops, making that perspective the main thing.--Peulle (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Alternative
edit- Support The alternative without the sign! --XRay talk 07:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Basotxerri, Basile Morin, Daniel Case, and Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your reviews. Here is a cropped version without the sign. --XRay talk 07:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - It's better, IMO, but I'd like it more if you also cropped out the rest of the window - in other words, a relatively tight crop of the pole just to the right of the window. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It would make a nice Photo Challenge entry, but there are too many distracting elements for the geometric repeat to be appreciated. Also you are perhaps not at enough of an angle to appreciate the repeat. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Better. And I still like it. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. I think the image isn't good enough for FP. --XRay talk 05:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 06:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family Fagaceae.
- Info Location, Sauerland Germany. Oak leaves with rime. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 14:47:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
- Info Krasnopresnenskaya Metro Station in Moscow -- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 14:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not centred; distracting people who don't add to the scene; lacking wow. Just a good QI. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose True about center - problem at symmetrical structures. If trying center than should be 100%, otherwise move move so much to be sure not centralizing. --Mile (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Minor symmetry faults, could be ignored, but this concept is overused, in this cat. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support The people do not disturb me --Llez (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin--Ermell (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Iguana marina (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), isla Lobos, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-25, DD 47.JPG, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 09:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Info Exemplar of a juvenile marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) laying on a rock in the coast of Lobos Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. All by me, Poco2 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support One of those rare occasions when tone-in-tone camouflage colors works for the photo. It looks like some mini-gargoyle posing for a stone carving on Notre-Dame de Paris. (Though I wouldn't mind if that bright, distracting glint or whatever above its tail was removed.) --cart-Talk 10:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support An excellent focus to the animal, it is very detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Good colors and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Granada (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support nice composition. Charles (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Karlstad Stonebridge.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 09:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Sweden
- Info created and uploaded by LG Nyqvist - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 09:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support A photo rich with color and interesting texures. I love the impeccable timing so that the light streaks, from what I assume is a bus, are only reflected in the open part of the river and not in the ice near the shores. -- cart-Talk 09:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Although I'm wondering why the lights aren't crossing the bridge continously from right to left, I do like the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well the technical answer is simple; the photographer didn't press the button until the vehicle was above he third bridge foundation. Since the bus/whatever had some speed, it didn't leave a shadow or anything at the point where the exposure began. There are light traces from a car that was behind the bus. I think that timing is rather splendid, since it leaves the birch grove and the ice on the right undisturbed by light streaks. --cart-Talk 15:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the explaination. Anyway, I wish that the lights were passing all over the bridge. But the image is good enough this way! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thats right. The exposure did not start immediately after the bus was on the bridgde. --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice! But there are some dust spots in the sky that should be removed. :) --Granada (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Info OK - Have taken away a couple of small spots and uploaded a new version. --LG Nyqvist (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support love the starbursts! --El Grafo (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 21:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info Remains of the casle of Montuenga, a fortification of the 11th century located in Montuenga de Soria, Province of Soria, Spain. All by me, 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - the power transmission line is a bit distracting, but very impressive otherwise. --СССР (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Very clean lines, but I would crop the right side further in - probably just a bit to the right of the pylon, but I think you could obviate complaints about it by cropping to its left, and that'll still look good and IMO better than the current crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ikan: I played around with the crop but I came to the conclusion that it's ok like this. Cropping the right side would break the golden ratio and the castle would be almost centered. Poco2 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- It wouldn't look almost centered (not that I think there's any inherent problem with that) because of the slope on the left. I will remain Neutral, I think, because there's a certain austere character to the photo as it is, but I haven't changed my mind that a good crop would improve the composition quite substantially. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support awesome. Any chance to clone out the power lines & pylon? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, this evening will definitely clone that out and think about the crop --Poco2 07:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @СССР, Ikan Kekek, and Martin Falbisoner: Done I've cloned out the power post and lines. --Poco2 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose vibrance, staruation is above my taste. --Mile (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Is that the original blue? Looks too saturated. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- BeckenhamBear: Original is hard to say, but that's the standard blue in all such images. I come from that region and it doesn't look unreal to me, but as it is the second voice in that direction I've reduced the saturation a bit --Poco2 20:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I only asked. I have seen such blue before. I will lend my support for this image with "accurate" colour rendition. I don't mind the image being tweaked to portray real colours as seen knowing full well that film chemistry or the camera software can tell lies. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- BeckenhamBear:I haven't understood your point, was the reduction of saturation fine for you or did it fall too short? Poco2 21:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
File:View through the shattered glass of a door in the SNCB B22490 type-K3 carriage, looking at a yellow H. Weyhausen KG backhoe loader in As, Belgium (DSCF3088-hdr).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 14:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Windows
- Info created by Trougnouf - uploaded by trougnouf - nominated by Trougnouf -- Trougnouf (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Different --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting but not enough to wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Nice, except the crop. Why not cutting the black frame ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I like how the door frame (black rubber and metal edge) "naturally" frames the broken window view, I would much rather keep it that way so I will hold off on cropping unless the consensus is that it's required for FP. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support very interesting imo. I'd also crop the black frame --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Very weak oppose for now.It's a new and fresh, interesting motif but the image is dark and dull, the post-processing could be better with some more light and contrast since it is an artistic photo rather than a documentary one. --cart-Talk 08:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I increased the exposure (as well as a few other adjustment on the sharpness and white balance), is it bright enough? --Trougnouf (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Now it is crackin'! Pardon the pun... ;) --cart-Talk 12:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - This motif, which actually occurred in life, produces a very good abstract composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 09:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, but I may support the cropped version without that black frame. Sorry I don't see the use of these partial borders. I just don't see what they bring to the image, what's the extra value of this half frame. We can't guess the material, it looks more like a disturbing element on both sides. Maybe if it was integral all around, at the limit, well, but cut like that, it kills the texture and ruins the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The black side bars are OK by me, they add to the abstract quality, and give some balance. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 01:01:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - The girl's face and some of the water buffaloes' faces are rather unsharp, but the view is so picturesque! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 09:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support It's sort of soft in some places and the composition is a little random ... but you know what? It's got a great evening mood, and I love the perspective, going from just in front of the camera's feet all the way out to the distant features on the horizon. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--LG Nyqvist (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Lahminewski Lab (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Going to Laos in a week, but won't leave the capital, and this picture makes me regret it. Delicate light. Only wish the framing was more focused on the subject. - Benh (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 04:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Nice photo but dull light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a good documentary photo and I like the fact that you can see an adult watching over him in the background, but like Ikan said, the light is dull and also I'm not a fan of top-down angle when photographing children. Taking the photo at his level would have been better. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above comments are fair. From the distance I was to take this picture (and this is a crop), it was difficult to place my camera lower to respect the perspectives of the building. I think the dull light is more visible on the top and on the right of the image. Thus, I try the alternative version below taken from a lower and closer viewpoint. Despite the new 16:9 format, this image is larger in size (24,2 MPix vs 19,3 Mpix). The adult behind has disappeared but the boy is smiling -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- I like that the whole shop is on display (that's encyclopedic), a version with a smiler would be better. . --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Alternative
edit- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support This is better. He has that cheeky "this is mine, deal with it" smile and look. In this photo, he is in charge and he is not some "poor timid" child you look down upon. --cart-Talk 12:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per cart, although I think a little more cropping in on the sides would help. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I like above version, but shallow DOF, so to show store isnt good, its more like portrait by store. We still need some social shots, so i support.--Mile (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The shop is the real star here and its cropped out. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Agree the shop is the real star of the first version. But this alternative displays another content -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 06:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very unusual motif, but to my eyes, the highlights are blown out and there are insufficient details on the goats. If you can fix those problems, I would certainly reconsider my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. The goats did put a smile on my morning but the light leaves much do be desired. Not sure it is fixable though. --cart-Talk 10:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite funny, but the light is a bit unfortunate.--Peulle (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
File:2016 Kwiat grzybieni białych 2.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 11:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose While it is better than File:Nymphaea alba in Duisburg.jpg it is not as good as File:Adarga (Nymphaea alba), Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 01.jpg, which has a more interesting angle than "point camera down at flower and press button". All flowers are pretty, so I think it requires some composition cleverness and excellent technique to get FP. Here the flowers are bright sunlit so detail is lost. The surrounding leaves, which aren't very photogenic here, are sharp and a bit distracting. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Though I do almost feel like I can smell the flower looking at the image in closeup. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I sort of like all the different kinds of bugs you can see when zoomed all the way in. It was enough to hold my interest. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Julian. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Contrary to Colin, I think that "point and click" photos can sometimes work, but then the conditions need to perfect. You need better light than this to get the structure of the flower, the surroundings and background needs to be good; here the leaves have seen better days and there are intrusive shadows (stems, stalks?) crossing the top of the photo. Unlike Daniel, I don't imagine smelling the flower here only the stagnant water. --cart-Talk 12:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Beautifull. AM (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 07:16:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
- Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment "Embedded color profile: “sRGB”" yay! However, the image is a bit lacking in contrast -- it's all midtones. Would it be possible to give it a little boost in global/local contrast to help make it pop? Also there's a strange glow that I added a note about. -- Colin (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- the "strange glow" is called smoke and comes typically from chimneys --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Could be. It has a strange straight edge cut out of the right-hand-side, so it looked more like the weird glow one can get sometimes from stitching frames. But perhaps the straight edge is a shadow from the lights and building combined. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- It not a shadow. You see the chimney below the "strange glow"? It would not be a problem to retouche the smoke. But I see no necessary to do this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Could be. It has a strange straight edge cut out of the right-hand-side, so it looked more like the weird glow one can get sometimes from stitching frames. But perhaps the straight edge is a shadow from the lights and building combined. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- the "strange glow" is called smoke and comes typically from chimneys --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've added a note to the image about a possible dust spot or something. Charles (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- whatever it was, it`s removed --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support sehr schön --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--LG Nyqvist (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support sehr stimmungsvoll --Schnobby (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Schnobby. --A.Savin 23:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 02:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
- Info – Cassini's last great portrait of Saturn. Without a doubt an emotional and historic image, this 6000px-wide photomontage of Saturn was acquired on 13 September 2017, two days before the spacecraft took its final plunge into the planet's atmosphere, ending it's 20-year journey through deep space. Six moons are visible in this view, along with the famous "ringshine" phenomena. The other two great trailing panoramas taken by Cassini are already featured pictures on Commons (2006, 2013), and I feel that the gallery would not be complete without this final, ultimate view before the end of one of mankind's greatest flights. – Created by the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology, and the Space Science Institute - uploaded by Philip Terry Graham - nominated by Philip Terry Graham -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Granada (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --LG Nyqvist (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Dura-Ace (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 09:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Ahmed Najji discuss me 17:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support pfffiouuu - Benh (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Looks like CGI, but then you look at full-res and it's even better. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Claus 08:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic. ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Jaswant Zafar at Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 18:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality, and probably valued image, but I'd like the person facing the camera for a FP. Also too much empty space. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose QI probably, but doesn't stand out enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Yann. A technically very good shot, sharp and well lit, but I would also love it to see the person facing to the camera. --Granada (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose A really good portrait does not have to be someone facing the camera (there are plenty of profiles and half-profiles in Commons:Featured pictures/People), but unfortunately the side of the glasses ends up right over his eye and that is disturbing the photo. Otherwise it is really good and I like the space in the photo since it gives the man a chance to breathe. I'm also intrigued by seeing how the glasses are tucked into the folds of the turban. I haven't seen many people wearing such headdresses and I didn't realize that's how they work with glasses. --cart-Talk 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Dahlia cultivar (70093s).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 00:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info focus stacked image of a Dahlia cultivar in New York in October 2017. all by me — Rhododendrites talk | 00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice flower, good stacking and I also love dahlias with their velvety oh-so-hard-to-photograph texture, but the light is unappealing and with two partially cut buds, the composition could be better. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per everything cart said, plus the posterization on the petal tips that happens so often in this kind of picture (And does it really fade from red to magenta like that?) Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Oh, thought I already withdrew this. Ah well. @Daniel Case: it does sort of fade, if I understand what you mean. See this other one from the same spot. @W.carter: I wasn't sure about this one, but actually figured I'd nominate it based on your QIC feedback (I may too easily take specific post-processing suggestions as hints when accompanying promotion) :) — Rhododendrites talk | 04:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Castel del Monte BW 2016-10-14 13-15-58.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 07:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice building, but I'm unconvinced by this picture. I've written a note with a proposed crop and a criticism of the cutoff of the tree at the left margin, but I'm unsure whether I'd support the photo if you took the two steps I suggest. The sharpness of the building is a little soft. The light is growing on me, though, and the vegetation is interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Monasterio de San Jorge, Perast, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 21.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 16:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info Far view of the islet of Sveti Đorđe (St George), Perast, Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. The islet, one of two off the coast of Perast, hosts the homonymous Benedictine monastery from the 12th century and the old graveyard for the old nobility from Perast and further from the whole Bay of Kotor.. All by me, Poco2 16:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 16:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I can see from File:Monasterio de San Jorge, Perast, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 18.JPG why you cropped so tightly above, but the extra water below makes the framing look strange. Also the left and right are clipped. It is only 15MP - do you have a wider crop to produce a more panoramic aspect ratio? The sky lighting is not best. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose also per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 10:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 21:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info Railroad Building in traditional wooden style, Skagway Historic District, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 21:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 21:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Maybe the lighting isn't ideal, but I think this deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Why choose to take a photo with this sky? 10:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) --Poco2 12:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: : do you have a recipe how to order this or that weather? The west coast of Alaska is one of the rainiest places on earth, I was lucky that it was not raining then. If you are asking for good weather then either you are extremely lucky when you are there or you have to be there often. Poco2 12:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Poor sky conditions is a problem we all face, but then if the conditions are not right we won't get an FP! Look at this eagle. Everything right for an FP except the sky. Charles (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's clear to me, when you said "choose" it sound to me like if that sky had been my choice. --Poco2 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think Charles is only saying that you must accept that some trips just won't get you an FP. And yes we've all been there. It is you who chose to nominate it despite that. - Benh (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose a very good QI for sure but I'm simply not wowed enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sky, isnt so big, 8-9 MPx from around 50 ? --Mile (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose QI for sure but the cloudy sky prevents the wow here (Although it was in the uppermost decile of the WLM USA submissions for last year). Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose With this sky, there'd have to be something else to wow me. Detail? Nope. This is only 8MP (why Poco?). Amazing building? Nope. The signs "The Train Shoppe" and "Railroad Building". Are American's really so dumb that they need to be told what is a building and what is a shop? Plus the word "shoppe" was considered a deliberately quaint spelling even in 1900. There are modern electric fans in the windows of this olde worlde scene. -- Colin (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I uploaded a bigger version, but anyhow, that's all folks Poco2 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Green crab traps with white buoys.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 06:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created by WClarke - uploaded by WClarke - nominated by WClarke -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too many blurry bars and other blurry things, uncomfortable to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Very arty, looks like the moon trapped. Unusual, intriguing and different. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Since I like odd, arty photos I wanted to get mesmerized by this but unfortunately that didn't happen. The lines are too many and too chaotic. The overcast light doesn't help as it makes all surfaces flat. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan and Cart -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 12:08:54
- Delist
- Replace
- Sectional maps
-
General overview of the Turgot map of Paris
-
The Turgot map of Paris in its assembled form
- Info (Original nomination)
- Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question I'm a little confused here. Is the proposal here that we delist one sectional map and replace it with one sectional map plus two one-file maps? --cart-Talk 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- W.carter, that's why the new set is better. --Paris 16 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- You're proposing to delist a single file in favor of a set? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Neutral until we figure out what we're trying to do here.Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)- Info I want to delist the old set Turgot map of Paris, Kyoto University Library (black and white) and replace by new set Turgot map of Paris, Norman B. Leventhal Map Center (color, better quality with two more file, one is a general overview, one is a gigapixel map).--Paris 16 (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - You aren't showing an old set, only a single currently featured file that you want replaced with a set. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The old set is above.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Info @Ikan Kekek: , @Daniel Case: and anyone else interested. The whole sets are displayed above. The twenty images that each of the sets consists of are just displayed in a grid of thumbs instead of one after the other, so they make up what looks like one single "picture" in the nomination. Depending on which square you click on in the "picture", you will be directed to a different file. If you open the editing window, you can see the name of each file listed. This nom is about replacing the 20 files of the original set with a new set of 20 files + two new files: one file that is all of the set images put together in a single file and one file that is a simplified version of that "merged" file with just the streets and major features and not all the little houses drawn. --cart-Talk 08:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I see. Thanks for explaining. The proposed substitution is better, even without considering the two additional files. Delist and replace . Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delist and replace --cart-Talk 09:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank W.carter!--Paris 16 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delist and replace I'm in favour, having examined the maps in some detail. I love maps. I noticed a bit of a colour stain left of Rue d'Antin and below R. de Bourgogne - they should see to that. --Peulle (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delist and replace 22:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above signature is apparently Daniel's. --cart-Talk 00:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delist and replace --Claus 10:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Info @Claus Obana: Please sign your vote to make it legit. --cart-Talk 09:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, W.carter.--Claus 14:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. cart-Talk 17:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 10:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
- Info A different take on car antennas. All by me, -- cart-Talk 10:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 10:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Really cool! (Or, well, frozen!) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Good idea, but for me too much of the image lies in darkness.--Peulle (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- For me, it adds a depth to the picture having a light side and a dark side, divided by the antenna. Having all of it evenly lit would have been boring and not given the image enough contrast. --cart-Talk 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I do not mind the darkness. I like the idea that is well executed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support these crystals with their dense texture. A macro lens would have made it gorgeous, but the quality is okay -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Creative!! Love the definition of the crystals. Atsme 📞 16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I prefer a little bit lighter. But a resourceful choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support As per others -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Super cool AM (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Reagan sitting with people from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in February 1983.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 13:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1980-1990
- Info In the series of images depicting significant historical events, this image is captioned: President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. 2/2/83. During the Soviet invasion, the US provided financial and military support to the mujahedin, in a covert operation managed by the CIA. While this support was classified, the moral support was public - as this image shows.
- Created by a White House photographer
(possibly Tim Clary)Michael Evans, as stamped on the contact sheet, uploaded by Scewing, nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC) - Support -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment -- I have done a minor fix: straightened and perspektive correction. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Most of the source links are broken. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Juliancolton: I did a little searching on the net and some digging and found that most of the files have just been moved to the Reagan Library website. I have put the new links on the file's page. One pdf lists all the rolls of film taken by the White House photographers during 1983, complete with contact sheets and everything (frame 32). Pretty cool! So the name of the photographer is no longer a mystery (it's Michael Evans) and you can apparently order larger files from the library if you want. A fun thing is looking at the other photos in this roll plus the one before and after so you get coverage of the whole event. This looks like a good site to visit to sort things out about photos from that era. --cart-Talk 23:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Historically significant. It seems like a hundred years ago that right-wingers and Evangelicals in the U.S. thought jihadists were righteous "freedom fighters", and of course they were fighting Soviet, rather than American occupation in those days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose historically significant moment perhaps, and possibly high enough EV for FP on Wikipedia, but for me the EV doesn't carry it far enough. the capture seems rather unremarkable aside from just being in the room. — Rhododendrites talk | 02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose While hunting for sources for this photos, I've gone over it in by head and now I find that Rhododendrites has expressed my view rather eloquently. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree that it has EV and would be a good candidate for en.WP but it doesn't quite meet the FP requirements here. Atsme 📞 16:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Bad Kissingen Maxbrunnen 0417RM0270.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 21:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop too tight and way too many HDR artefacts round the lights -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Ansel Adams and camera.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 05:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by J. Malcolm Greany - uploaded by Kaidor with modifications by User:Utzdman55 and Kaidor - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Djhé (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Charles (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support God historical value and quality considering the age.--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Uncalibrated f/64. --Mile (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Claus 08:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support The photographer photographed as he would have photographed his work. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Does anyone know what is the camera kind/model? --Gnosis (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The front looks very much like a Zeiss Ikon Trona.Ok, according to some camera geeks ([5] [6] [7]) it's probably a Zeiss Ikon Universal Juwel. --cart-Talk 09:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Thanks a lot! appreciate your kind efforts. --Gnosis (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Kleinarl Jägersee 20180209.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 14:24:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Salzburg
- Info Blue hour at the frozen lake Jägersee near Kleinarl, federal state of Salzburg, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 23:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info Most African malachite kingfishers are around 13cm, but this one from Ethiopia (who appears to be an adult) was only about 10cm. All by Charlesjsharp - -- Charles (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - What a beautiful bird, and I would say this is a clearer picture of this species than your preexisting FP, which is also an excellent picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral A great photo, but in my opinion we have enough Featured pictures of the kingfisher.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is only one other FP of this species - it is a different subspecies - and it shows a different profile of one of the world's most beautiful birds. I'm surprised by your comment as you yourself have two FPs of an identical view Example 1 and Example 2. Never mind your two FPs of the same fuscia species Example 3 and Example 4. I realise also that you find that your sawing machine justifies 3 FPs! Do explain your reasoning please. Charles (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Answer: your comparison with my photo is not entirely up. Those pictures differ from each other. But of the kingfisher we have at least 5, of which 1 is with a fish in the mouth. The sawing machine is also very different from each other. I also commented on that. Once again your photo is perfect, but it looks like the other photos. But that is my personal opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll leave others to judge the differences between your images, but I don't think there are arbritrary limits on FPs. You may know, for instance, that there are 34 Featured pictures of Ardea, many of the same species - and herons are not more diverse and attractive than the kingfisher family - though I'm biased as I love kingfishers and they are so much more challenging to photograph than herons! Charles (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Answer: your comparison with my photo is not entirely up. Those pictures differ from each other. But of the kingfisher we have at least 5, of which 1 is with a fish in the mouth. The sawing machine is also very different from each other. I also commented on that. Once again your photo is perfect, but it looks like the other photos. But that is my personal opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Love that beak ... I had to back away a little bit when I first saw this because I thought it was going to peck out the lens. I wish more of it could have been sharper but, I know, you do what you can with what you've got. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 13:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 12:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info This Ethiopian kingfisher is about twice the size of the malachite nominated below. She perched right next to the malachite which is quite unusual. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --LG Nyqvist (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --СССР (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support She now is a punk rocker. :) --cart-Talk 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- "This video contains content from Warner Chappell, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." Perhaps the surviving Ramones should use that as the basis for a song lyric Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I have no problem viewing it in Sweden. --cart-Talk 12:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Oh, don't worry about that, you couldn't have known. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I have no problem viewing it in Sweden. --cart-Talk 12:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- "This video contains content from Warner Chappell, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." Perhaps the surviving Ramones should use that as the basis for a song lyric Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 07:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - It is inevitable that any panorama of Toledo will be compared to this fantastic painting by El Greco. Your view of Toledo doesn't capture that magic. This one, although much smaller and certainly not perfect, IMO, does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'd add this one to compare - Benh (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Benh's suggestion is much more interesting. I suspect there might have been a few new buildings since El Greco's 'fantasy' panorama! Charles (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but the photo of Toledo I linked to was taken only a few years ago, and in any case, the buildings El Greco painted and their location on a hill are still there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not attracted to "effectively" processed images, they too distort reality, especially colors. For encyclopedias are more characteristic of the reflection of the real world. Photos in general cannot opposing to painting masterpieces, because their methods and technologies, and most importantly, the tasks, are too different. -- Ввласенко (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Two photos have been provided to you as comparisons. Not enough of the old city is in this photo, and the composition isn't compelling. And you think FPC in Commons is only about encyclopedias? I think that would be FPC in Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately in my view Ikan Kekek is right. Commons FP is not at all about encyclopaedic value. Otherwise most of the FP candidates here would not make FP. Charles (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite nice, but a bit soft.--Peulle (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I thank everyone who expressed his opinion. -- Ввласенко (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Kloster Banz vom Staffelberg 270136-PSD.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 07:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment a bit too centered? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but this light doesn't give me the wow. With so much nature being included, I'd need some more impressive lighting.--Peulle (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral To be there and see this view in real life is something special. Difficult to give it justice in a picture. If I have been there I had divided the view in 3 rows and 3 colums and put the building in same row but in colum #1 or #3 --LG Nyqvist (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment That depends on how you divide up the picture. The uppermost light in the clouds is the rest of the sunset far left outside the picture. The sky was simply too dark on the right side and in the foreground and on the right side there would be lights of the highway and other roads. But I will certainly find another solution next time.--
- Ermell (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Peulle, no wow for me. IMO the main object is also just a small part of the composition. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Color seems very off, and unsharpness in some areas more than the long exposure can forgive. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
File:Cassia fistula (Golden rain tree) flowers.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2018 at 02:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Fabaceae
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice but I'm not seeing more than a QI here. -- Colin (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 11:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
- Info created & uploaded by Wolfgang Moroder - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - The mountain on the upper right may be a bit disproportionately unsharp, but the overall quality is good and I find the composition quite interesting. (I don't like the category - it's not a purely natural scene and I wanted "Mountains" but couldn't figure out how to get that to link to anything.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question Why is the tree in the middle of the picture? Charles (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - IMO, bisecting the picture nearly in two that way is a nice structural element and look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Like the "lines" in the picture. --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, not an interesting composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition too. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but not special enough to be FP. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support The swiss pine and the sunburned logs of the barn give a special taste of alpine atmosphere --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice scenery, but big parts are unsharp. This camera definitely has better performance --A.Savin 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition of diagonals and verticals -- Llez (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 19:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
- Info Night view of the Spasskaya Tower (translated as 'Saviour Tower'), Kremlin, Moscow, Russia. The 71 metres (233 ft) high tower is the main tower of the eastern wall of the Moscow Kremlin and overlooks the Red Square. It was built in 1491 by the Italian architect Pietro Antonio Solari. All by me, Poco2 19:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 19:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Like it. Charles (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Camera positioning. I would prefer a front view. Also, unfortunate framing with too much space on the top and not enough on the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, ok, Basile, I prefered this view, in a front view you can hardly appreciate the real form of the tower. Regarding the crop, I've adjusted it a bit, but as the building is facing to the left, I believe that it is normal to expect a bit more of space in that direction, and it shouldn't be totally centered, either. --Poco2 16:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Too distorted. Compare to other photos from the same point: e.g. this one, yes poor quality but looks much more real. Sorry --A.Savin 14:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- A.Savin, I've uploaded a new version with a different ratio, is it better now? --Poco2 16:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- The new version seems less stretched, but if you look at the clock area, there is the same unnatural distortion (again, compare to other mentioned photos). --A.Savin 19:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- A.Savin, I've uploaded a new version with a different ratio, is it better now? --Poco2 16:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per A.Savin. Shot from too close, so the wide-angle perspective is rather extreme when the "perspective distortion" is "corrected". Compare File:Вид на Спасскую башню от Исторического музея.jpg which isn't so extreme in perspective. Also the dark brown sky -- our finest night photography has better light than this. -- Colin (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 07:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)