Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2016

File:Wakefield Cathedral Choir, West Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 13:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice image, good composition. Looks like perspective problems at the top. Lights at the windows (and background) may be a bit overexposed.--XRay ^talk 15:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support per XRay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is there somewhere I (and probably the many others who might like to do this) could just go and say "our signatures on this page constitute a support !vote for all of David Iliff's tonemapped images of church interiors; should we want to !vote otherwise we will make that clear on the FPC page"? But then again I often leave comments with those support !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 01:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abtei Seckau Basilika Innenraum 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 11:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Interior of Seckau Basilica, Styria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice church and good picture, but considering the extremely high standard of church interiors by Diliff and others, I find this picture insufficiently sharp and probably without sufficient detail of the altar to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I don't think comparison to others' works is really fair except for photos of the same exact object; I think we should have consistent standards (modulo difficulty) regardless of subject matter, and just because one particular category has disproportionately many high-quality FPs does not mean our standards should be raised there. The blown-out windows would ideally have been controlled with HDR but it's not strictly necessary for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe we should discuss this on the talk page, because I think many of us make allowances for the quality of photos of very unusual natural or historical events or very rare creatures photographed in the wild. I think the flip side of that is if we have loads of great photos, for example of stained glass windows, our FP standards should be correspondingly higher. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Looks great in thumbnail size but at full size it's rather soft and the DoF seems insufficient to me. Our other church interiors are much more detailed usually. The blown window doesn't really bother me - a bright window can look bright and I don't expect any information there. All in all it's a good picture but it has some flaws. Hard to decide. --Code (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ikan and Code. The standard is to be among "the finest on Commons" and I do think that is topic-dependent and finest naturally is higher where we already have a high number of excellent images. It's really rather soft (too much NR?) and yet somewhat downsized from camera resolution which I would have expected to sharpen things. As such there isn't any detail in the stonework, the writing no the walls is illegible and the other wall art unclear. The corners are naturally extremely soft due to the projection/wide-angle. I think where the technical level is below FP standard, the subject/lighting would have to be spectacular to compensate, and this here is fairly ordinary. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aspen Highlands bowl from Loge Peak .jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 17:34:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice photo, of course, but not striking enough to me for FP. The lack of contrast between the clouds in the sky and the snow on the slopes doesn't help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 03:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ikan nailed it. --cart-Talk 08:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Zcebeci (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I am going to give this my support even though it probably will not be promoted the way things are going because, when I first looked at it, I shivered slightly for a second or two. It's not the season for it and I am too many years removed from a ski slope, but the instant I saw it I felt myself again in a moment I have experienced many times: late in the afternoon, perhaps an hour before the lifts close, standing near the top of a run pondering whether I should try to make this next one fast so I can get in one more before calling it a day, just as a strong breeze comes up and makes me feel that chill even under all the warm insulating ski clothing I have been wearing all day, reminding me that my body is feeling its limits, as I regard a scene like this.
Any image that can capture that, can make me feel that, is in my opinion deserving of being featured, even if it is a rather static picture of a mountain under a partly cloudy/partly sunny sky. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Thanks Daniel. It's exactly what I felt looking at this photo taken some time ago but thinking forward to the next skiing season with the same feelings as yours. And, a cloudy sky makes your feelings towards dealing a rough nature more intense, maybe scaring. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lack of contrast between the mountain and the sky --SuperJew (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 19:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:President's Summer home, Rio Negro Palace, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 01:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info President's Summer home, The Palácio Rio Negro (English: Rio Negro Palace) is a palace located in Petrópolis, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All by -- The Photographer 01:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer 01:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Weird light, not very sharp and several dust spots just above the building toward the left. I'd love to see a similar motif with more sharpness in better light, maybe with a tighter right margin to eliminate the partial inclusion of some uninteresting buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharpness especially in lower left and lower right; I feel like standards have risen to the point where a standard centered architectural shot will either need a really good lens or panorama stitching. I disagree with Ikan on the lighting though, I think the cloudy day is great for bringing out the beautiful colors of the building and grass without worrying about shadows. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, far from being sharp enough, leaning to the right (at least it seems so to me) and the light's not pleasing. --Code (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per unsharpness at depth (look at the areas to the sides of the building) and slight tilt noted by Code. Although I wasn't bothered by the light—for a light-colored building like this, it may have been a good idea. Support now that those concerns have been addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the reviews, I did the follow changes:
- Done Sharpening and composition (with another picture of the same section) in corners and dust spots. @Ikan Kekek:
- Done I cut the border to eliminate the partial inclusion of some uninteresting buildings.
- Done Leaning to the right fix. Thanks @Code: @Daniel Case:

This picture was done on a travel to Petropolis, Brazil and this picture was taken using tripod. Anyway I hope had improved the picture, thanks again --The Photographer 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You improved the composition, but it still isn't up to FP level to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews and votes positives and not (well docummented). Maybe it's a combination of 10 years old camera and low quality lens --The Photographer 12:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 19:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gastdozentenhaus Universität Stuttgart 2015 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 02:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very lovely, but a bit dark for me. @Julian Herzog: Do you think you could make it a bit brighter? For me +0.5 EV (with 10 highlight recovery to prevent blowing out) would be ideal. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to trust you on this one, I'm currently without a monitor that I would trust. I brightened it by about 0.4 EV, hopefully that's fine. Thanks Nikhil for the nomination. — Julian H.^✈ 03:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 08:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful composition. It's great that pond is so clear that we can see the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kloster St. Trudpert - Gesamtsicht1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 05:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I detected some dust spots in the sky. For sure I'll erase them this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erased now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support First class. -- -donald- (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful landscape and excellent quality, but there is a rather noticeable halo between running the entire length of the border between the sky and the top of the mountain; did you make any unusual local contrast adjustments? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support despite the slightly strange sky. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 08:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit centered... otherwise just great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice landscape! --Ivar (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be better to remove the "UFO's" in the sky :-) --Laitche (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Color space in EXIF says: 'Uncalibrated'. Why? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Schön! Another landscape I want to walk in. Would be nice to have a geotag, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case: I've added my location and those of the abby. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 19:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kolvitsa river.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 21:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Large blown and posterized areas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 21:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but another overexposed average sunset image. Nice, but not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blown sun, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 19:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red admiral butterfly (Vanessa atalanta) underside 3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 09:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Washed out details, especially on the red parts of the wing. Postprocessing has gone too far or the lens are not up to task? --Ivar (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do hope you are not being serious. Please search the Internet for other images of the ventral side of this butterfly. Charles (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment How about this one: --Ivar (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I rest my case. The colours on mine, including the 'red', are stronger. Charles (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Red channel blown; I think. White to on the extreme end. J e e 17:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I concur, perhaps too much contrast was added in postprocessing? In that case it should be easy to fix. --Ivar (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unsharp foreground is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Lovely bokeh, and great work on the butterfly, but the flower in front is just complex enough to be too much of a distraction from it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Хотинська фортеця в місячну ніч.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 07:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by User:Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just saw this photo at QIC (it was promoted), and I find it poetic and beautiful. I'm also impressed with the photographer's light control. I guess the moon and a bit of its reflection on the water may be a tad blown and posterized and the very tops of the towers are just a bit soft, but they're good enough for me in context, and for a picture in low light conditions, the fact that the fortress is so clear and the stars visible in the sky aren't traily at all is impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ryzhkov Sergey could you please upload a higher resolution version of this? This appears to be downsized 50% and thus only 9.7MP from 36MP camera. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Where so many attempts like this often fall short, this has succeeded. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure if I want to see how it looks at 36 MP. It is just excellent as it is. Period. --A.Savin 21:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose. The shadows, or whatever it is at the castle has some very strange greenish and wrong color (see annotation). A postprocessing mishap? Otherwise very nice and atmospheric. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice however it wants a bit more space on the top. --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord -- 2016 -- 1253.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 15:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting shapes and good work but I don’t see anything outstanding. If only the nearest arc wasn’t cut by the frame on the right. --Kreuz schnabel 19:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 22:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and rather unique shape. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support So interesting compositionally (it feels like another album cover for some cool Krautrock group that I've never heard of and would want to hear if they used images like this on their album covers) that it offsets the depth of field that I wish was sharper on the bricks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting and offbeat, and I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view, but not enough wow, a bit too boring for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. Like the rough industrial look. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this kind of photos must need some impressive element or factor, the only nice composition doesn't deserve FP, imho. --Laitche (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The kind of picture I like. Excellent composition and light, but sharpness is not enough IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 14:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 02:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry#Germany

File:Wesel, Zitadelle, Haupttor -- 2016 -- 4340-6.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 15:34:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry! Although you are half a metre of centre :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but little wow, sorry, for composition and lighting. I am aware this kind of light has been chosen on purpose yet I don’t like the facade being entirely in shadow, making the foreground (which already covers almost half of the frame) much brighter than the actual subject of the image, making the latter look dull. Then, it’s rather soft considering what’s possible today (due to f/13 diffraction I fancy). A stitched panorama of this static object, for instance, could have easily been taken as well, giving way more detail and crispness. Und eine einzelne Aufnahme ist per definitionem kein HDR-Bild, auch nicht nach Tonemapping. HDR heißt „mehr als eine einzelne Belichtung an Dynamik zu fassen vermag“. --Kreuz schnabel 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 22:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I like the composition a lot. I like that the cannons are more or less facing toward us, I find that the building being in shadow actually emphasizes it (in somewhat the same way that a listener will really perk up their ears when there is a contrasting soft section in the middle of moderately loud music), and I like the view through the archway in the center of the building. I'm very tempted to support a feature. But what gives me pause is Kreuzschnabel's point about the softness of the focus. To my taste, this is a very good photo in almost every way. In a way, it's like my heart supports a feature but my brain is just not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the golden lighting + dark clouds. The lack of illumination on the facade doesn't bother me that much. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, a bit soft, but that's no dealbreaker here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. The lighting may be golden on the grass but that's not really the subject. I think for a photo like this to rise above QI it needs to have great lighting of the building, or the building more amazing, or far higher resolution/sharpness. We have so many greater building FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice perspective, light a bit suboptimal, but still ok for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alchemist. Gets enough right. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice and sharp but with this light, the lawn actually looks more interesting than the building and it has no wow factor for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support My impression is exceptional. --Milseburg (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers. There is too many empty grass/lawn IMO, and I miss something "more" regarding the famous "wow" factor. Sorry. Not a bad picture, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 02:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cobeta, Guadalajara, España, 2016-01-05, DD 19.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2016 at 03:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info General view of the municipality of Cobeta located in the province of Guadalajara, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. The population of Cobeta is (according to the 2004 census) 108 inhabitants. Note: this picture belongs to the project No municipality in Spain without a photograph. All by me, Poc o² 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - You mean "No municipality in Spain without a photograph". I like the photo, but I wonder what it would have looked like if you had cropped to the right of the building that's cut off. Did you take any wider-angle photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, Ikan, I meant without photograph, I corrected it. I've uploaded a new version with more image on both sides, but the building on the right is still cropped. I don't know whether I've another version of it. I have only a few RAW files with me. Poc o² 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit oversaturated?! but enough wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending correction of that leaning tower on the left which has been noted.< Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Support now that that's been done. A landscape that confronts the viewer with what a Spanish winter is and isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case: True, I've corrected it. Poc o² 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine technique and light, but the composition is not at all FP level in my opinion. Especially the right hand side appears rather arbitrary with the cropped buildings and the electrical wires coming down in a distracting way. Wires can be OK if they add to the composition of a photo. In this case they do not for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. INeverCry 22:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary composition for me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Laitche, no wow.--Karelj (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 06:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) at Magdalen fjord, Svalbard (1).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 21:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Phocidae_.28Earless_seals.29
Info created by AWeith - uploaded by AWeith - nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the filesize is somewhat small; however this guy was nosy yet very, very shy and would not come any closer. Therefore, I had to crop the image rather extensively. Nature photographers designate the view of the white in a seal's eye the best they can ever achieve. I guess spotting yourself on your RIB in its eye is not much worse ... -- AWeith (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose light flares, dust spots and noise, fixable of course. Support Excellent clean job, It's ok for me, maybe now you will need ping everybody that already voted --The Photographer 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since AWeith is rather new to Commons he may not know how the 'ping' is done, so hereby I 'ping' those who voted before the cleanup to let them know what has been done: @INeverCry: & @King of Hearts: . cart-Talk 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you are referring to as "dust spots" might be out of focus water drops from general splatter or from the the seal exhaling near the surface. But if you see something that needs fixing, please make notes of it on the file page and let AWeith fix those minor flaws himself if he likes to, instead of doing your usual own fixing. cart-Talk 09:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendation, I have added the notes. --The Photographer 11:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time to indicate the critical spots! I am entirely with W.carter on the origin of them; however I agree they are disturbing. I have, therefore, just uploaded a new version with removed spots and reduced noise. I'd appreciate your second look. --AWeith (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mostly for the sheer artistic quality of the photo. --cart-Talk 09:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm tempted to vote for this photo on the same basis as W.carter, but was the seal really that blue? Other QIs of harbor seals seem to show them as white and gray. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The seal is wet and therefore he's reflecting the sky the same way the water does, so he takes on the color of the water. Our grey seals here in my town looks the same when wet. (Yes, we have seals and "seal safaris" here.) --cart-Talk 16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that is the case. The other seals of this herd not swimming (e.g. resting on the flat rocks) are rather beige in their fur color (see also my QI pic with the "dry seal" and the wet one tempting to climb onto the same rock as the dry one). On top, it was the blue hour in the shadow of Losvikfjella, which is 1083 meters high.--AWeith (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks for the explanations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely! I know full well how difficult it is to shoot seals, otters and the like when they're in water. This one made me smile! Good job, AWeith. Atsme 📞 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart's !vote, I like the way it almost looks like it was shot in monochrome. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture! and the reflection is superb! --SuperJew (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 06:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Phocidae_.28Earless_seals.29

File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act1 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1871 Cairo - Gallica - Restored.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 03:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. What needed to be done to restore this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Mainly dust and chipping, though a very obtrusive stamp was also removed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: You can find a link to the original in the file description page, as Adam always do.--Jebulon (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 06:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) attacking, Amsterdam island, Svalbard.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 08:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Sternidae_.28Terns.29
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When breeding, these guys are extremely aggressive and protect their nest or hatchlings from the air by painful strikes with their beaks. The only way to protect oneself is either to stay at a safe distance or to lift something like a walking stick (or the telelens) above the head. I'm trying to explain that this image resulted from a risky departure... -- AWeith (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great capture, and the areas that are blurred by motion are quite OK, under the circumstances. I didn't realize when I first saw this photo that you were the object of the attack! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were three of us and we've all been victims; one after the other. --AWeith (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Going by our usual (extremely high) bird-standards this is a rather small and not as-sharp-as-usual photo, but as an action shot of a bird protecting its own, it's superb. The action is embedded in the motion blur of the slightly distorted feathers, creating a beautiful silhouette. (Being picky, I could ask for a few extra lines of pixels at the top since the wing tip is rather close to the edge.) That is one angry bird... --cart-Talk 10:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 6.6 megapixels is fine for a bird-in-flight photo and the head is sharp. Behavioural shots of wildlife are especially valuable and uncommon. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per Ikan. I will add for myself that having seen similar behavior from Arctic terns in the Arctic, and having made a few attempts to photograph them in normal flight, this is no mean feat. Image's technical deficiencies are more than adequately compensated for by what it captured. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 06:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great bird in flight shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Sternidae_.28Terns.29

File:Maria Taferl Basilika Kuppelfresko 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 06:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Fresco in the dome of Maria Taferl Basilica (Lower Austria) by Antonio Beduzzi (1714-1718): Life and assumption of Mary. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sharp throughout and very pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors and contrast nicely handled and no distortion at corners. Wish those linear shadows weren't there but you couldn't have done anything about that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bucharest - Sunset on Lipscani Street (28592940111).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 18:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Bukarester - uploaded by Bukarester - nominated by Bukarester -- Bukarester (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bukarester (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the foreground are too dark, the sky overexposed. The image need also a perspective correction. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is way to dark and in need of some perspective correction. It is recommended that you nominate a picture for Quality Image before trying it here. That way you can get tips and hints from other users on how to improve it. cart-Talk 19:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per comments, too dark and sky overexposed

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narikala, Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 154-156 HDR.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 04:14:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Night view of the Narikala fortress and the 's statue in Tbilisi, capital of Georgia. The fortress was established in the 4th century and expanded by king David the Builder in the 7th century. Vakhtang I Gorgasali (ca. 441 - 512) was king of Caucasian Iberia. All by me, Poc o² 04:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 04:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hm. Sorry. The composition is not that convincing (tree on the right, cut houses at the bottom, a lot of empty sky at the top). Then there's a lot of blur (wind? camera shake?) and and it's somewhat noisy. --Code (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code. INeverCry 06:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually like the contrast between the empty sky at the upper left and the buildings at the lower right, but I'm wondering whether I'd like the composition better if the lower crop were below this. I feel like I'd like to see at least some of the rest of the largest of the buildings with triangular roofs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB ? --Mile (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 18:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, o neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holy Spirit chapel in Jabłeczna (Яблочина).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 17:51:29 (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) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The chapel is hidden in the shade and trees, and the extensive foreground of grass is not interesting. Maybe you could try photographing the chapel when more light is hitting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me the lighting and composition are good, but it is just too small for a landscape photo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. But with a tighter frame and different light, this might be different. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Paraíso tunnel main gate of Caracas.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 19:03:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Venezuela
Info All by -- The Photographer 19:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this much better than the other one that was featured a while back—the light's better, the centered point of view is more striking, and the picture as a whole makes it point much better. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however the other one has more merit IMHO, because @Rjcastillo: risked his life (leave the car to take a picture in the most dangerous city in the world[1]) --The Photographer 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Daniel. The quality is very good considering you were on the road. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ INeverCry 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per below. Great colors, they look almost poserized until you open the pic and see that they are actually true. cart-Talk 10:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing new and no change since this 2014 failed nomination under another name.--Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it has been a bad nomination as the result of positive votes was 4 times higher than the negative. On the other hand, your comment on "under another name", makes me feel bad like I was hiding something that is quite public in the description of the image and I can't understand how you are able to see this other nomination but you are not able to view the file history of changes showing a selective noise reduction which was a huge job (it was not an automated tool) recently. --The Photographer 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Bad composition and denoise artefacts -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose per Jebulon and Dmitry A. Mottl: denoise artefacts! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done I rebuild the image, please, let me know if the "denoise artefacts" is gone. Thanks --The Photographer 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not done: this image is still ruined reworked. Take a look to the tree over the red car in your original and the newest version ... I also wrote: per Jebulon! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and I think that the problem is gone (I uploaded another version). IMHO this last version is considerably better that the originally uploaded. :) --The Photographer 23:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That may be, and I'm OK with the changes you made, but I think you should ping everyone who already voted and see what they think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since we are heading into another one of these confusing edit wars with tweaking a pic during nomination, I'm withdrawing my vote and sit this one out. cart-Talk 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's a valid recomendation and thanks Ikan Kekek for your idea. I'm pinging everybody King of, @INeverCry: , @Johann Jaritz: , @Martin Falbisoner: , @Kasir: , @ArionEstar: , @Jebulon: , @Dmottl: , @Alchemist-hp: . Please, feel free of change your vote if you think that this version is not in line with the version that you voted. --The Photographer 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Per W.carter. INeverCry 07:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: and @W.carter: , This is not a completely different picture, is an alteration of the original photo, just noise reduction and performe small fixes pending a nomination is in line with the spirit of this section provide better quality images to commons and improve our quality as photographers and photo editors. If you are stopping someone improves a photo based on a valid criticism you are curtailing the ability of feedback, learning and improvement provided by this section and I'm not here to accumulate awards, I'm in this section primarily because of those negative votes that help me improve and I love that feedback and This is something that has been happening in the past and more drastic changes in the photos. Please do not limit the learning process. --The Photographer 11:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stopping you in any way, I'm simply choosing not to vote here due to too much confusion about what version I'm voting on. cart-Talk 11:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll switch to neutral, as an oppose is too harsh. Perhaps I should take a break and re-think my participation here if I'm getting in the way. I knew what I was doing with my Minolta XE7 and Mamiya RB67, but digital photography can be a challenge to understand. My votes and comments aren't very technical here, because I'm not that technically knowledgeable. I usually vote support for what impresses me and oppose for what doesn't. I may not be qualified to vote here. I came here for enjoyment of the images, but that doesn't take voting. I can just look but not touch in future. INeverCry 11:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: Please drop a vote now and then if you feel like it, a good healthy gut feeling about a picture is more vital than all the tech talk. I can keep up with the tech stuff, but I don't think those points have the final say in whether a pic should be FP or not. Btw, speaking of what we use to take the photos, I think you will find the 'Equipment' section on my user page of interest. ;) cart-Talk 19:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: Well my camera has 10 years old and it was a gift from a globally locked user. Btw, you don't need have a D800E to became a good photographer, a good photographer need only a insatiable hunger for photographic knowledge and exactly like any wikimaniadict. And more important is be a good person and be polite with others users respect their work and contributions are crucial and I'm not the best example (I am very easy to irritate). --The Photographer 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ezarateesteban 22:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seckau Maria Schnee Panorama 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2016 at 09:18:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
Info Maria Schnee pilgrimage church at the Hochalm near Seckau, Styria. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 09:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but wrong light direction for the main, the "Maria Schnee pilgrimage church". The church is in shadow and too dark. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and golden ratio: Almost 50% rather empty sky are too much. The horizon is too low. Otherwise verry good, apart from the a bit too dark church. --Milseburg (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Milseburg, I disagree that the "golden ratio" (or "rule of thirds" also) should ever be a reason to oppose. It's about as valid as opposing any image that isn't 2:3 aspect, say. Just as certain aspect ratios are popular/generally-pleasing, and certain arrangements of objects within the frame are popular/generally-pleasing doesn't follow that an image that breaks this "rule" is flawed. To be honest, most extreme panoramas (and certainly 360° ones) fail to be pleasing compositions. They have a certain educational interest quality, for panning around the image, but as a whole image, they generally don't please the eye imo. One can argue such panoramas are meant to simulate the view of a person looking around the view while looking straight ahead. As such, a horizon about halfway is natural, and indeed the camera will be facing that way to avoid distortions. So a seriously cropped sky (as some of your noms have) looks vertically compromised to me. The view is very wide and thus needs room to breathe vertically. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - We will not agree here. I feel a 50:50 split between sky and ground even at these formats to be disadvantageous. Especially so much blue sky is boring. Think of the impression it would make in printed form on the wall. This is not a sperical panorama. --Milseburg (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't 360 but is quite extreme. Certainly wider than one sees without looking left, centre and right. Whether the sky is interesting or boring is beside the point. If a composition needs negative space then it needs it. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is too much negativ space here. --Milseburg (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject and ground is just too dark. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate illumination of main subject, sorry. And in general I feel it is only very seldom the advantage in information richness of a near 360 deg panorama outweighs the disadvantages of the very non-practical aspect ratio of such an image and its composition. And this particular example is not one of them - for me. But it was probably breattaking to be there and see it with your own eyes. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aularches miliaris-Silent Valley-2016-08-13-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 04:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Arthropods
Info Aularches miliaris. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great insect and the composition is quite acceptable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 06:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like something the props department for a SciFi movie would conjure up. :) --cart-Talk 07:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super capture --SuperJew (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo. Charles (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 09:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Karelj (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Orthoptera_.28Grasshoppers.2C_crickets_and_katydids.29

File:Sadhu in Janaki Temple, Janakpur-September 22, 2016-IMG 7437.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 08:22:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the file's name correct? Are these men called "Baggers" or did you mean "Beggars"? The description is all about a temple (there is no temple in the picture) and says nothing about the man in the photo. The categories also needs to be better. --cart-Talk 08:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He looks more like a Sadhu. Although many of them make a living from the donations, they are not beggars. Mendicant may be more suitable. J e e 08:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. In any case, this needs to be clarified and fixed. cart-Talk 09:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info Thanks for reviews.. @Jkadavoor: @W.carter:
- Done File renamed..
- Done Suitable description..
- Done Suitable category.. --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's quite arguable whether this photo should be featured - everyone should have a look at the Featured Pictures in Category:Sadhus and note that some of the photos are of better technical quality - but I think it should because it's a different kind of sadhu picture than any of the Featured or Quality pictures of sadhus on this site, it's of acceptable quality and it's moving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, gritty docuumentary feel. Not perfect (the dust on his left shoulder seems to have posterized slightly) but that's a bit more effective here, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not dust; a kind of paste. Just sharing some info. J e e 08:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 07:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive --Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive indeed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shrinika performing Abhinaya (Kede Chhanda Janilu Tuhi).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 02:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Mydreamsparrow - uploaded by Mydreamsparrow - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not big but good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great little photo and great little dancer. A bit more thorough description on the file's page with things like where the dance is performed plus some links to appropriate Wikipedia articles would be appreciated though. --cart-Talk 08:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 11:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Westminster London June 2016 panorama 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 06:18:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically perfect as always and kudos for getting up that early to get this place without any people, I bet it's packed a little while later, but the light is too dull in most of the picture and it does not give me a wow factor. One of those moments where it probably felt magical to be there but it doesn't quite translate to the photo. Sorry. cart-Talk 10:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart about the light, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This doesn't quite make it for me because of a combination of the light and its not being as sharp as I'd like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per W.carter; an excellent job getting us there but not much there to get to. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabo de Gata, Andalusia, Spain.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 17:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cabo de Gata, a natural mediterranean site near Almería, Andalusia, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, rather dull light and boring "mediterranean" architecture, sorry--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Paw. aaaargh. I'm dead. Please call an ambulance (or the coroner, better).🤕🔫--Jebulon (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it really necessary to make fun of a serious comment? Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing is really necessary. Nor participating, Neither useless comments, neither lessons. Sadly. Only fun is necessary. Always.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I know, this is the way to kill candidates ;-) but, it's unfortunately (for you) the way I feel about your picture. Salue --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Salut ! Happy to see you understand what I mean. It is not the case for everyone here, as I can see... Well nothing "unfortunate for me", just a nomination of a picture in FPC. Nothing serious, then. Thanks for comment and vote, caro amico.--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to see some clouds, but otherwise I like how the shapes work together. Any other composition would've thrown it out of balance. INeverCry 08:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moroder --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - The interesting landforms are really what make the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California LCCN2013633353.tif, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 17:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Carol M. Highsmith - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photograph is part of a batch upload project from the Highsmith collection at the Library of Congress. Motivated by the lawsuit against Getty Images, see Village Pump archive. As the TIFF is a large download, over 100 MB, the Commons full size jpeg version is a useful alternative to view. -- Fæ (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 11:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition (but disturbing lower left corner), poor choice of aperture and lens. Yes I know, its a professional photographer but f/5.6 and a zoom lens is obviously not optimal. The quality (photo and camera from 2012) and depth of field s not impressive, not very high wow imo. --ArildV (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /INeverCry (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Langkofelhütte Gherdeina.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting; the sun seems to be right above the subject. Unfortunately this leads to dull colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like you to pay a visit here. I'd be more than happy and honoured to give you hospitality--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. INeverCry 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no FP because the mountains are unsharp = false focus point!?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree both with KoH and Alchemist-hp. I find the place very beautiful, the composition good, and the picture more than good in general.--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon. It seems excessive to require mountains to be totally sharp when they're in the background or at least middleground. I think they're sufficiently clear to make sense in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose - beautiful scenery, but not sharp enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Very striking perspective to the mountains but at first I though the lighting is somewhat bland. I think there has happened a little focus error. --Ximonic (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has an embedded AdobeRGB color profile. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. For web use the recommended color space is sRGB. An AdobeRGB version is OK as an alternative as it may be slight better suited for making prints. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Deeply regretful oppose As much as I love Wolfgang's images of the Italian Alps, and really thought he had nailed it in entirely new ways with this one, the opposes are right: the summits are far too unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanessa indica-Silent Valley-2016-08-14-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 13:42:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Vanessa indica, Indian Red Admiral, is a butterfly found in the higher altitude regions of India. Here it is in Silent Valley National Park, 1400 m a.s.l. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 13:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 13:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful butterfly, really impressively photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question obviously super photographic quality and beautiful colours. I'm wondering if a tighter crop would bring out the colours even better? --SuperJew (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, SuperJew. I prefer to maintain the 3:2 proportion whenever possible. So a bit from top and relatively from both sides can be removed. Does it make a difference? J e e 15:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Harsh light of the flash mitigated very well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support good. I too prefer 3:2 whenever possible. Charles (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Johann Strauss II by Fritz Luckhardt.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 23:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Fritz Luckhardt - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good photo and excellent restoration! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love that expression, or perhaps the lack thereof, on his face. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great restoration work. --Gnosis (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Polish-Saxony CoA in Festung Königstein.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 22:01:50 (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) 22:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Decent capture of the coat of arms, though the background is distracting. I don't see this rising above the level of QI though. -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 22:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info A 225 megapixel panorama of the Royal Albert Hall from the gallery. Taken when the hall is open to visitors on the weekend of Open House London 2016. The large purple mushrooms / flying saucers are fibreglass acoustic diffusing discs, installed in 1969 to solve an echo problem. They are lit by an array of LED stage lights. The stage is empty and strangely grey compared to the colour surrounding it. If you have problems viewing this image in your browser, use the interactive large-image viewer, or one of the smaller downsized versions, all of which are linked from the file-description page. It's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so viewing fullscreen is best (Press F11 on Firefox). All by me. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support New size standard and excellent sharpening. Colors a bit purple aura, however, it look like reals colors. Maybe my favorite picture this month on FPC. The composition look also excellent, however, I would like to see more in the bottom, what happend?. Anyway, congratulations for this contribution --The Photographer 22:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The purple colour is the result of the fairly monochromatic stage lights, which are a pain to photograph. Coloured stage lights are always artificial in their effect, but these LED ones seem especially unnatural. As for the bottom, well that's the lowest I've got. The balcony handrail prevents being able to see much more below and I wasn't prepared to dangle my camera over the edge to get a better view. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explain --The Photographer 11:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 22:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, but who need this size of an image??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other day Slaunger told me he was proud to see one of his large panoramas on display as a huge poster. The interactive viewer makes it possible to explore the scene, rather than just look at it at 1980x1024. I think this is a rich enough scene to reward exploring in detail. It also looks great on a 5K monitor ;-) -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Absolutely flawless. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great achievement! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Code (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I guess a lot of effort has been put into this picture. --Ximonic (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size, sharpness and colors are impressive. But that's not all. Cut and composition are unbalanced und suboptimal. A full spheric projektion from a more central shooting location would have been the better choice here. --Milseburg (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have another panorama taken (but not yet processed) taken from a central box, lower down. I suspect it will have symmetry that is pleasing, but also contain a lot of the empty stage, which is less photogenic at this time. I felt this view showed more of the audience as well as the stage. While I won't argue about your opinion on the composition, I disagree that there is necessarily one best view -- a venue like this merits photographs from many locations A 360 projection like here would be wonderful but note that we were only given access on Open House day to a few boxes and to part of the gallery, neither of which are great for 360 views, and would be cluttered with fellow Open House visitors. Diliff told me has been trying for a long time to get photo access to the Albert Hall, and was not successful -- they are always busy setting up for performances and couldn't find a slot for him to be free to take photos. Category:Interior of the Royal Albert Hall shows this is not a frequently photographed venue, and most other photos are snapshots during a concert. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically excellent, but the colours are not typical of the Albert Hall in normal lighting. Charles (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles, as a concert venue, lit by whatever lighting the team wish to put on, I'm not sure what one would regard as "typical". See View from your seat and virtual tour for various examples (though since the JPGs on that site do not embed a colour profile, they appear way too saturated on my wide-gamut monitor with most browsers). Here's an example from Open House 2014 that has the discs coloured red. Here's one that is blue. Here's a single-shot photo take from a similar position with similar colours, though this time there's a red light on the roof and their saturation is higher. Do you have an example image that shows typical colours, or "normal lighting"? -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No I'm afraid not Colin, but I've been there 20+ times, hence my comment. The acoustic discs are off-white. Charles (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Charles, Ha! Yes I know what the colour of the discs are when there are no stage lights on ... because halfway through taking photos for this stitch, they turned off all the lights. Thinking my stitch was ruined, I held my breath for 90 seconds before they turned them all back on again. Whew! The unlit discs are like this photo. Not pretty, and probably would work better in a photo taken from lower down where the discs are not so prominent. I too have been to a classical concert, many many years ago, where the discs were not lit. But all the photos on the Albert Hall official site show them lit colourfully. This older classical concert photo shows the neutral lighting one might expect (though it doesn't include the discs, there's not purple in the gallery or on the organ), yet this recent classical concert photo shows the purple stage lights in the gallery and a purple organ, so I suspect would also have purple discs. A Google Image search for "Albert Hall Interior" has coloured discs vastly outnumbering unlit discs. So I disagree that there is "normal" lighting for the Albert Hall, which hosts many concerts and events with differing requirements for light, and suspect that un-coloured discs are now actually the minority situation, rather than "normal". -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! A very hard to get to subject. Well done, excellent technique, very pleasing composition, very high detail level. Valuable. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the colors ... slightly surreal, perhaps, but they add interest. And they make those accoustic discs look like what I thought them to be at first ... some way of trying to figure out how many holes it takes to fill the building (Sorry; you knoew someone was going to try that one ). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kalahari lion (Panthera leo) male 6y.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 09:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you add some more exposure? --Ivar (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand your request. You want it darker or lighter? Charles (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Add exposure compensation. --Ivar (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very mild Support - I like the head and body of the lion. I also like the composition, except that I don't love the crop on the right side or the unsharp foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is. The lion's head is absolutely beautiful at full size, but the photo is a bit too dark and the right crop is not good. As it is now it's distracting since I keep wondering what has been cut off; is it a tail, another lion, leftover from the dinner gasell or... cart-Talk 09:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. (a minor issue, possibly fixable is the sky is rather noisy especially chroma noise and a bit of posterisation). -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart, who as she often does says everything I was going to. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Charlesjsharp: This is a great photo, but everyone seems to agree it is too dark. Could you please fix? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sorry, been away and not able to upload edited version. Charles (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You might want to ping everybody except me, as I still mildly support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schoenbrunn Palace as seen from Neptune Fountain, September 2016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2016 at 08:06:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Austria
Info A somewhat different photographic approach to Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna, Austria, here as seen from (or rather through) Neptune Fountain; all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had this on my list of potential FP nominations, too. Unusual and good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a refreshing palace picture! --cart-Talk 10:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 01:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 05:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well-done something different that would make a great cover photo for a travel guidebook. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support good idea and implementation --Milseburg (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sgt Major Christian Fleetwood - American Civil War Medal of Honor recipient - Restoration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 23:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Unknown photogreapher - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Any further darkening and information would start to be lost. One could change the midpoint, but this is probably the most accurate reflection of the original photo. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm satisfied, and it's a good photo to feature during Black History Month or on Memorial Day, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As featurable for depicting someone of historic importance as it is for exemplifying military portraits of that time. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Chertkov Mansion, left wing, windows.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 20:25:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Dmitry Ivanov - uploaded by Dmitry Ivanov - nominated by Dmitry Ivanov -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition, hash contrast, lef column shadow is distracting --The Photographer 00:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I like the composition. Of course it would be better if the column were on both sides, but I like the composition, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 06:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but without that left harsh and bulky shadow please. cart-Talk 09:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. I think the two window arches and designs above/below make an interesting geometric abstract. But the statue on the left, and its shadow, detract. Not sure whether this is fixable at another time of day. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per others--Clear Sky C (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuerte Bordj el Kebir, Mahdia, Túnez, 2016-09-03, DD 34-36 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2016 at 03:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Night view of the fortress of Bordj el Kebir and the moon over it, Mahdia, Tunisia. The fortress was built in 1595 over a squared Fatimid Caliphate palace by the Ottomans in order to resist the attacks of Spanish and Maltese vessels. All by me, Poc o² 03:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 03:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interesting composition, but would you consider making the stars untraily? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: Done Poc o² 21:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, making the stars almost completely invisible is one way to deal with the issue, but I find it very disappointing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan: I removed them all and took me a while to do so, editing each of them to make them look like spots is a request that I've never got so far and would take me much longer. If other reviewers agree with that I can do it, but right now I hardly have time for that, I could give it a try when I am back home and still I'm not 100% convinced about that approach. Sorry, as said, I only was able to do this change in the time frame I've now. Poc o² 07:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. I think the stars improve the composition somewhat, but if the only way to get rid of the trails is to delete the stars, I still find the resulting picture featurable. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice colors; a little soft near the top left of the fort but ... it was a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 08:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NSB El 18 Hallingskeid - Finse.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 21:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was a rather difficult shot to get. Apart from the good weather, which was just a lot of luck (and by "luck" I mean "LUCK!!!"), the location is hard to get to. It's inaccessible by car and the nearest train station is a one-hour hike away (which is a nuisance) and has very limited service (which is a problem). Our solution was to to rent two bikes at Finse and follow the Rallarvegen. My butt still hurt two days later, as I have not ridden a bike for like 10 years and the Rallarvegen is not in good condition in many places...
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I particularly like the reflections, and much respect to you for the great efforts you made to get this shot! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and for future treks: Norwegian roads are not made for bikes but for walking or Gå på tur. :D --cart-Talk 09:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no embedded colour profile and the Colorspace EXIF tag is "Uncalibrated", which means "not sRGB" and so suggests the image might be in AdobeRGB colourspace. Is this an out-of-camera JPG and if so have you set your camera to AdobeRGB for JPGs? A colour profile is absolutely required for non-sRGB images to display properly for almost all users, and required even for sRGB images for those users viewing with wide-gamut monitors. If you are unsure how to fix the image, ping me. I can also insert the relevant tags (without affecting the JPG quality) if you know what colourspace it is. Other than that, it's a great photo. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's sRGB. I use sRGB everywhere because everything else is likely to cause problems sooner or later. However, I store the JPEGs (in current PS) without color profile because I found that it's not needed. Maybe that's not the best idea? As to where the EXIF tag comes from, no idea. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, if your software you use to develop your raw files can export a JPG with an embedded colour profile, that's excellent and needed to ensure accurate colours. User:Colin/BrowserTest explains the problem, though it is hard to appreciate without a wide-gamut monitor. Jeffrey's Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer is a useful tool, as is EXIFTOOL upon which it is based. -- Colin (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've uploaded a new version with color profile. Note that it has small changes in brightness, these are because I did some corrections after the raw import, and I don't have the exact values of those anymore. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost looks like it's on another planet. This and some of your other FPs have prompted me to create Category:Water reflections of rail vehicles Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 08:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Iceberg in the Arctic with its underside exposed.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2016 at 12:59:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
Info created by AWeith - uploaded by AWeith - nominated by W.carter.
As someone stated earlier, quality comes from factors: quality of the shot and rarity. This is not only a beautiful picture, it is also the first good photo we have here (AFAIK) of an iceberg with part of the underside showing. Until this photo was uploaded, all Wikipedias had to rely on an artist's impression of what an iceberg might look like under water. -- cart-Talk 12:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 12:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gimme a drink of some o' that ... Seriously, great. Can I say that, if promoted, this will be the northernmost FP so far? Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shot this one at approx. 80°N i.e. 600 nautical miles from the pole. I'd be glad to nominate another one even further north if you promise to be generous with your vote ; -). --AWeith (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear doing morning yoga? :) --cart-Talk 15:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for comparison, here's the northernmost FP from the Western Hemisphere ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, thought that might be north enough ... :D --AWeith (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a map/system/whatever with only the FPs displayed? Or do you just have them all in your memory? --cart-Talk 09:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 01:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a pretty high latitude, 8 deg higher than my northernmost FP;) But could you make the geocode just a little more precise? It is shown in the middle of the ocean, yet there is land to be ssen in the background of your image. I can recommend this tool for creating a better Location template. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger, since I and not the photographer (AWeith) made this nomination, I'm not sure he is keeping a eye on this page very often, so I'm 'pinging' him for you. cart-Talk 16:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being able to answer in due time; I’m just moving my son and his household from Hamburg to Bavaria. The image is taken just west of Sjuøyane, i.e. 80°40’N 19°09'E. I’ll specify the exact lat/long as soon as I am back home.--AWeith (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Absolutely no problem. I added the more precise geocode in the file page for you. Nice shot. I have been photographing icebergs years back, but found it hard to get such a clear view of the iceberg under the surface. Very nice work. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 16:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Nice shot. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Simply WOW !--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me please thank W.carter for this nomination; I would probably not have dared to do that, at least not as one of the first proposals out of my arctic collection. However; she was so enthusiastic about this image from the very beginning; we even discussed some version that exposes some more of the underwater part that you can devine at the right of the clearly visible portion. I could provide this version if desired, though I think your positive votes indicate this is a worthwhile presentation and I don't want to disturb the nomination process. Thx again, W:carter! --AWeith (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AWeith, thanks for your kind words! Tell you what, during this nom-process I've been thinking about that other version and I would propose this now: This is such a great and artistic photo as it is, so let's just leave it intact. I'm sure it will get showered with more praise and awards. But I think you could upload the somewhat brighter photo as a new file, to be used by those who want a pic with a bit more of the underwater part visible. After that you can connect the two versions by using the "Other version" option on the file pages, same as I've done with this pic and a cropped version of it. (Take a look and you'll see what I mean. You can suss out the code by opening the files at the "Edit" button or ask/'ping' me and I'll help you.) I think that would be the best solution. Hope the move went well and your son is all settled in. :) cart-Talk 21:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is now nominated for Picture of the Day on the Hebrew Wikipedia. cart-Talk 21:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 20:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sultan Pasha Al-Atrash2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2016 at 09:14:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on 2 encyclopedias.created by American Colony (Jerusalem) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the head is overexposed and a bit unsharp, not perfect for FPC Ezarateesteban 14:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support. This is a historical (and historically important) picture from c. 1925. The unsharpness of the head is regrettable, but I think a feature is not unwarranted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-posed portrait, reasonably well digitized, of a historically important non-Western figure. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 06:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ezarate --Zcebeci (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ezarate. --Gnosis (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kendall Wall Band.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2016 at 20:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by imasku - uploaded by imasku - nominated by Imasku -- Imasku 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Imasku 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Poorly cropped, cutting off people's hands. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of dust and scratches. Looks like a scanned publicity photo. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{}}: Interesting, what the commenters really have no idea about true photography. There are no dust or scratches, that image was shot in 1980. Not a scanned image.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 01:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Buldern, Schloss Buldern -- 2015 -- 0040-4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 04:06:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me, but there is a row or two of anomalous pixels on the bottom of the image that should be cropped out. dllu (t,c) 05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hint. I‘ll fix it tomorrow. --XRay ^talk 18:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Just fixed. --XRay ^talk 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 06:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm a bit bothered by one or two unsharp plants in the foreground on the right side at full size, but I quite like the composition and atmosphere, which to me feels Halloween-like. Bare trees with that kind of appearance are a trope of spookiness here in the U.S. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spooky. --cart-Talk 09:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the composition and atmosphere. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. well, there are some problems with branches (like to ones in foreground), but the wow impression is too strong to really care about that. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. --Gnosis (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unordinary picture! --Zcebeci (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Höxter Germany Corvey-Abbey-14a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 06:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Supporter statue - detail of the organ loft inside Basilika St. Stephanus and St. Vitus in Corvey (Höxter, Germany)

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I wasn't sure about voting to feature, though I like most of this photo. And then I saw the window with the blown light. It's not a huge part of the photo, but there's enough of it that it functions as an effective tie break for me. If there's a way you could unblow that window in a convincing way, I might be inclined to reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bright window is really distracting, sorry. Even apart from this I see not more than a QI here, nothing outstanding. --Kreuz schnabel 09:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belvedere, Vienna September 2016.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 07:02:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Austria
Info The Belvedere is an ensemble of baroque palaces in Vienna, Austria. Though this image may not provide the largest of files, I do like its special mood created by the late afternoon sun and the reflection; all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is quite small for FP, but also quite good. It feels delicate to me, in a good way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice building but I'm not convinced the image is more than QI. Small size robs it of detail, made worse as the subject only occupies one quarter the area of the frame (I so want to see the statues along the roof, and the bushes are just smudges of green). The random tourists and the red "Tickets" banner detract, and the left third doesn't have such good light being in shadow. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fully agree with Colin --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Colin: You're right, I'm afraid. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prachtige berk (Betula) in mild avondlicht. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 20:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Beautiful birch (Betula) in the mild evening light. Location, nature Delleboersterheide - Cats Poele, in the Netherlands. All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very nice tree, but I don't find the overall composition really outstanding, partly because of the way the trees on the right are cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 23:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: this picture is better? --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like that better; I might even give it a mild support. I'm a tree-lover though. lNeverCry 06:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that photo would benefit from having almost all of the tree on the right cropped out, because the shaded upper part of it hinders my eye movements. I also might want the whole small tree to the left in the picture. But I think you can definitely work with it to get something that I, at least, would support. How others would react, I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piazza Sant'Agostino Miele.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 12:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/add_the_category_here
Info created by AngeloMiele - uploaded by AngeloMiele - nominated by AngeloMiele -- AngeloMiele (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AngeloMiele (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting composition but the technical quality of this image is far below the threshold of current FPs - sorry! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image quality is very low and the composition does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely noisy. --Cayambe (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. --Zcebeci (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of insufficient technical quality, per the remarks above.

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

-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asian Elephant 11.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 10:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info An Asian elephant enjoying the water at the Melbourne Zoo. Created, uploaded and nominated by SuperJew -- SuperJew (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SuperJew (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and sharp, but the cropped tusk is very unfortunate and I would also have liked a bit more of the ear, possibly as much as was visible above the water. Tusks also seem a little bit glary (overexposed?) even if the are polished white. Is there a wider crop of this? The wire (electrical?) is not very photogenic either. cart-Talk 11:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: I took this one too (I chose to nominate the one above as it was the only one assessed as QI, even though I nominated them for QI together). No, I don't have a wider crop, sorry. I personally like to get up and close with animal photos, just my style :) --SuperJew (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Ok, thank you. Still not too crazy about this (or the other) photo. Sorry. cart-Talk 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Images of captive animals are acceptable as FP only in very exceptional cases, which is not the case here. This is in no way outstanding. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Uoaei1: Why does the animal being captive or not have any bearing on the photographic quality? --SuperJew (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: High image quality is a precondition for FPs. But it is not sufficient. FPs have to be outstanding in any way, which is for me usually not the case with captive animals. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1: I definitely understand that thought. I didn't understand if you were saying that an elephant in the same pose but in the wild would be outstanding, and if not, why mention that it's captive? --SuperJew (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some people object to photos of captive animals in principle. However, that aside, they are pretty easy-to-take shots so we have lots of them, compared to close-up photos of genuinely wild animals. And zoos tend to have lots of ugly distracting features like concrete and fences. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the issue is the distracting features such as the wire mentioned above and composition/cropping, not the actual fact of captivity. I think voting by principles sounds against neutral-POV. --SuperJew (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few Zoo shots get FP, but most haven't. The opposes are usually because of unattractive fences, walls, walk-ways, etc, or because there are too many people around, or the animal is lethargic and hard to photograph in an exciting or interesting pose. The other factor is that you usually have a lot of time to set up a shot in a zoo, so the highest technical excellence is expected. In the wild it's understood that a photographer may only have a short period of time to get a shot before the animal runs away or even becomes aggressive and dangerous, so technical errors can sometimes be overlooked. I agree with you that someone who voted against all zoo images by principle would be behaving unfairly. I haven't seen that happen here with any subject in the year or so I've been participating. lNeverCry 06:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition is not good enough on the left because of cropping --Zcebeci (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop isn't so much of a problem for me, but the background is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for the constructive criticism. I'll keep it in mind next time I'm out photographing. I'll withdraw this nomination as it obviously is not FP. --SuperJew (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhodes' old town.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 18:28:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures
Info created by LunaLinda - uploaded by LunaLinda - nominated by LunaLindaLunaLinda -- LunaLinda (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LunaLinda (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but harsh light and overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp. It is recommended that you nominate a picture for Quality Image before trying it here. That way you can get tips and hints from other users on how to improve it. cart-Talk 19:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Might this need perspective correction, too? I think you have a good compositional idea, but how would it look from the other side? The wooden terrace (or whatever it is) gets in the way of the view of the arch. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. INeverCry 01:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Црква „Св. Јован Канео“.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2016 at 14:48:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by Darkocv - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pretty, but is it overprocessed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Note that have two existing FPs of this church: here and here. I agree with Ikan that it looks overprocesed, with far too much contrast and dark shadows. There's posterisation in the sky/water. It isn't especially detailed (6MP and not sharp). -- Colin (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at those two pictures, I definitely Oppose a feature for this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good perspective of this building plus the tech flaws mentioned above. cart-Talk 21:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry 01:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bucharest - Smârdan Street (28547822606).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 13:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Bukarester - uploaded by Bukarester - nominated by Bukarester -- Bukarester (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bukarester (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see how the sunlight building caught your eye, sandwiched between the buildings on either side. You've clearly pointed the camera up, perhaps to try to get the top in the frame or to avoid a busy street below. But the result is converging verticals, which have not been corrected in software. I think the building on the far right isn't so interesting as it is in shadow. And the leftmost part of the left building is also rather plain, so those could be cropped out perhaps (or hold the camera portrait, which might give you the vertical height you need). I see from your EXIF you have Contrast=High, Sharpness=Hard. I suspect this might be making the image look a bit over-processed. Consider using more standard/neutral settings on your camera, or else take raw rather than JPG and use a raw image processor like Lightroom, which I can strongly recommend. -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, however, Overexposition fix was too far changing whites for greys (look left building), denoise artifacts, right building too harsh underexposed, sky posterization (see notes) --The Photographer 17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bukarester: Since you are rather new to this section and probably only ended up here since you tried to get your picture as Picture of the Day, you may not be familiar with the rules. If you want to end a nomination you have to put {{withdrawn}} and sign your post instead of just removing the nomination. Colin wrote that in the edit summary, but I doubt you saw that. cart-Talk 18:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree that this photo is not featurable, for the reasons given above, but I would like to encourage you, because you had a good compositional idea here. My only real disagreement with the composition (aside from questions of lighting dealt with above, etc.) is that it would be better to crop out the bit of a building you have near the left margin. The rest is technique and practice. I hope you will eventually be able to nominate a featurable picture in time. Meanwhile, I'd suggest for you to frequent Commons:Photography critiques for more advice, and after a while, COM:Quality images candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cascading waves at Kallbadhuset Lysekil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 10:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
Info A "Kallbadhus" (literally "Cold bathhouse"), open-air bath, can be found in many Swedish towns. Most were built during the 19th century (like this one) and they usually look like small castle pavilions. Built for comfortable outdoor bathing, this is not the kind of weather you usually associate with them. This is the most difficult photo I've taken so far. Tripods are not an option in storms, unless you want to chase them for sport, and you get showered with salt water. I tied the camera to my hand to keep it from blowing away and set it to continuous shooting hoping that something would turn out ok. Of the over 800 pics I took that evening, 600 had too much camera shake, about 60 of the remaining showed something interesting and only 8 made the final selection. All by me, -- cart-Talk 10:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 10:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Are some parts of clouds posterized? I'll leave that determination to someone else. I really like the drama of this picture. But be careful! We wouldn't want you to get blown away. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lack o sharpening, some element disturbing and unbalanced.(I added notes) However, I like this composition. --The Photographer 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notes. However the stone block is pretty hard to move (and it's part of the harbor infrastructure so not to be cloned out) and I like to keep the whole wave to the right. Let's keep this nomination as it is. :) cart-Talk 18:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait the nightfall and try move it, however, Try to keep too many elements in the composition could shut down the importance of all remember it's only my opinion. --The Photographer 18:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was almost nightfall when I took the pic and moving stone blocks was the last thing on my mind then. :D Anyway the storm is over now, I'll probably have to wait another year for the next big one. Your opinion is much appreciated, we'll see what others have to say. I'm hoping to avoid another editing circus. cart-Talk 18:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spent most of my childhood in a small village on the Margarita island, Caribbean Sea. Every afternoon after school, I went with my father to fish. The pier and buildings were more rudimentary build in colonial times, however, swell and sky were almost the same. --The Photographer 20:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Yes, the clouds are posterized. But I see that as a necessary tradeoff to getting a shot that shows us the serenity and fury of nature in one scene. I'd support the suggested crop, too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7. INeverCry 06:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I like it as it is, but that's just me. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken to this user. cart-Talk 13:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jee for sorting this out, and the other vote as well. Never thought I'd thank someone for finding a way to strike a 'Support' vote on one of my pics, but this feels much better. cart-Talk 12:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some "strange" votes in some noms in the morning itself; but I've no time, then. :) J e e 12:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know what to look for if somethings seems odd and how to deal with it. :) cart-Talk 13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de Sioni, Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 97-99 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 19:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Ceiling of the Sioni Cathedral, a Georgian Orthodox cathedral in Tbilisi, capital of Georgia. The cathedral is situated in historic Sionis Kucha (Sioni Street) in downtown Tbilisi. It was initially built in the 6th and 7th centuries. Since then, it has been destroyed by foreign invaders and reconstructed several times. The current church is based on a 13th-century version with some changes from the 17th to 19th centuries. The Sioni Cathedral was the main Georgian Orthodox Cathedral and the seat of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia until the Holy Trinity Cathedral was consecrated in 2004. All by me, Poc o² 19:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even thou that purple fringing within dome windows might need some attention. But overall, that's an excellent image of a very complex thing to capture. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivo, those slight purple fringes are now removed Poc o² 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting light. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and light, max camera picture size --The Photographer 21:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is special to me with the light plus the beautiful church interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Very good! --XRay ^talk 05:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very beautiful but please do enjoy your vacation and take care of your raws after your return! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin: who spoke of vacation?! ;) I just try to use the time at te airports or during longer drives, but agree next time will visit WLM participating countries before end of September ;) Poc o² 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Gnosis (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a lot of wow! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support You can never go wrong with crepuscular rays in churches. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique location, but also very well spotted unusual and eye-catching composition. The crepuscular rays adds the final touch. Nice to see a creative variation on the theme of church interiors. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting composition --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco is really a great traveller ! and a great photographer. We are lucky.--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. Per others above. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is simply fantastic! I especially like the geometry of the crepuscular rays.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Città Vecchia di Rodi.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 17:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by LunaLinda - uploaded by LunaLinda - nominated by LunaLindaLunaLinda -- LunaLinda (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LunaLinda (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh contrast, car is cut, need verticals fix. This file is only a sample of what I'm telling you and not and It aims to make a real correction or alt nomination --The Photographer 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. cart-Talk 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh light and the image need a slightly perspective correction. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are compositional problems, too. It's best to avoid including part of a car or cutting things off as you did with your left crop. The light is harsh, but that's a very common light in the Southern Mediterranean. I'd be OK with light that's just a little less harsh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, Alchemist especially. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiche bei Graditz.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 20:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Fagaceae
Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice oak tree, but not an interesting enough picture for me to support. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 03:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice tree. We need more nice images of trees! :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but centered composition with midday light isn't very appealing. --Ivar (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good and clean shot of an oak, hard to get since the good specimens usually are in dense groves or places with disturbing things. I like that the shadow in a way gives the oak a sort of "visible root". But please add latin name in the description and categories. --cart-Talk 08:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition, I'm sorry no wow for me --The Photographer 11:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pedestrian composition, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per cart.. something new in FPC -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition, ordinary light. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Tree kind not identified. --Gnosis (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??? @Gnosis: how about this: "Quercus robur". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to be rude. --Gnosis (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, sorry, I didn't want it. The image describtion incl. the right kind of the tree. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per (Alchemist-hp); updated the FP category. J e e 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The tree is ugly-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good, flawless image, QI no doubt, but nothing breathtaking. --Kreuz schnabel 09:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elisa Bonaparte with her daughter Napoleona Baciocchi - François Gérard - Google Cultural Institute.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 16:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by François Gérard/Google Cultural Institute, uploaded by Zhuyifei1999, nominated by Yann (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Gigapixels image of a colorfull painting. The whole image is too big to have in one piece (around 3.36 Gpx(!), above the limit of 65535 for JPEG images).
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Do you have a good suggestion on how to view this image at full size? The large image viewer showed me only a small part of the picture. I was actually able to view the picture normally by clicking on it, but attempts to zoom to full size failed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek plz use Mozila Firefox... -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always use Firefox. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, and W.carter: I never try to see such huge images with a browser. I download it and open it with the local image viewer, or Gimp/PS/etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with not being able to see it directly or doing so with a few friendly tips from users like you. What I meant was that I question if something this hard to get access to for the readers/viewers who use this site to see things and get some knowledge, should be featured. Our "best" is not only about the work and picture quality of it, it is also the documentation and accessibility of the files. A parallel: how good is a book if only a few select can read it? cart-Talk 12:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: You may not be able to see the full size version with a browser, but you can still see a very high resolution version (5000x6637), which is already worth a star. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to Support on that basis, but it really is a problem for people to have to download such a huge file onto their local drive to view it in full. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ikan since I'm having the same issue at the moment (and I'm using Chrome right now, and I have never had that issue with any other images, even larger ones). Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- same issue in chrome but not in Mozila firefox. --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I said, I have this problem in Firefox. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dschwen: Is there a bug with zoomviewer? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well I've tried it with three different browsers and even if I have a really good broadband, I still can't get any of these pics to open properly (they start uploading and showing only to blink out and vanish). I'm not voting on something this hard to see. The project is about easy access to good material and this is not like that. --cart-Talk 08:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding, but I understand the frustration, if the fail is not opening correctly. --Ivar (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 8.😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gersfeld, Panorama, b.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 20:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I'm not feeling impelled to support this effort, although of course I respect it. The composition isn't very interesting to me, with nothing that striking and quite hazy light in the middleground and background, including the town of Gersfeld. I think that given the quality of the panoramas we've been seeing at FPC, this is not outstanding enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 03:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and INC. Looks like it sure was humid that day ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mentha arvensis - põldmünt Keila.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 20:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created and uploaded by Ivar Leidus - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the colors. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for nomination. --Ivar (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp and fresh! --cart-Talk 08:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough of it's in focus, and the green tones work well together. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The green plant on a green background is not good contrast imo. --SuperJew (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The green plant on a green background is not good contrast imo. -- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:PL-PK Mielec, mural nad Wisłoką w okolicy parku Oborskich 2016-08-24--10-07-36-002.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 19:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Kroton - uploaded by Kroton - nominated by Kroton -- Kroton (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kroton (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Fun picture, but is there a reason why you had to crop it so close on top? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The singer's hair is very close to the edge of painted surface. The picture with the background (green bushes and the piece of white wall) looks much worse. Please look at this photo --Kroton (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the explanation, and most importantly the link to the other photo. I had no idea this wasn't in a more urban environment. I find it interesting enough for a feature. Moderate Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice texture, framing captures quite well the way murals interact with their environment and their medium; but I, too, would like an explanation for the tight top crop. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama von der Milseburg.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 12:35:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The crucifixion is really dramatic and dominates the picture, in my opinion, with the rock outcropping as the secondary focus. I find the overall composition good, the sharpness and resolution very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't feel the 360 panorama is producing a successful composition. I suggest your start and end points aren't the best. If you shift the centre to be on the cross then you end up with a 360 that makes more sense to my eyes, starting and ending with the rocky outcrop. That seems like a more typical 360 panorama, and worth uploading. But now the cross is centred and Christ facing left. So then I might crop the a bit off the left hand side to remove the rocky outcrop, and more off the right hand side to place the cross roughly one third or one quarter in from the right. That to me is a better composition -- it makes sense that you are then standing on the same hill as the cross, and have some context/scenery either side, but Christ is facing into most of the frame. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Colin's suggestion is a good one, and I'd like to see the result if you choose to try it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will upload the proposed composition sometime. In my opinion a centered cross is suboptimal. Christ should look into the hole panorama from the right. He shouldn´t divide it. On the other side Wasserkuppe (highest mountain of Hesse) is good to be in the starting-image. --Milseburg (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC) @Colin: @Ikan Kekek: , I´m not sure exactly, where you suggest the 360-cut. Please make a note. It´s ideological problematic for me to remove the rocky outcrop, because the pano loses authenticity then. --Milseburg (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too many blown areas on clouds, common to exposures made at ISO 80 in my experience. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any problem with the bright areas on some clouds. The clouds are one of the best features in the photo, and it is a shame there isn't a bit more vertical room. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like clouds like this too; I just find that when you shoot them at 100, you get something more realistic, clouds that look like what you actually see, rather than toothpaste globs. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Colin & Daniel. INeverCry 06:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the scene at lower half part is darky because of the clouds' shades --Zcebeci (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is natural, I think. --Milseburg (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Utö kyrka October 2015.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 08:58:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created &uploaded by ArildV - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love this composition, the light, and the counterpoint between the clouds and the autumn leaves. The church is sharp. There's some unsharpness at the left, but I don't think it ruins the photo at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 09:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 12:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, a very good QI with no doubt, but nothing special enough for a FP in my opinion. Especially the church is just common.--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this were just a picture of the church in a dull or blue sky, I might agree with you, but not with these clouds and autumn leaves. Mais chacun à son goût. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the autumn colours of the leaves, the interesting sky and the painted church in between. There are subtle features also leading the eye towards the church. The wide-angle view over-exaggerates the perspective of the church a bit perhaps. -- Colin (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole is greater than its parts, and that's saying a lot considering how strong the parts are—the church steeple severe and solitary against the mackerel sky, the leaves on the ground accentuating the message the gravestones around them convey of the impermanence of life. You could not do better if you were to pick a scene on which a hypothetical Bergman movie were to begin. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Excellent lighting and nice composition. Nikhil (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aiguille du Goûter.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2016 at 15:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Jacek Rużyczka - uploaded by Jacek Rużyczka - nominated by Jacek79 -- Jacek79 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info There is an obvious stitching error at the ridge in the right of Refuge du Goûter --Milseburg (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Milseburg is correct. I have added an annotation of it on the nomination page. Besides that a pretty good stitch. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request but Oppose ... too dark blue at a day time shoot? and the chromatic abberation must be also removed. thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me pretty interesting to explore, like seeing how many people you can spot if you look closely. I am not too happy about the crop at the top. I think it is a bit too tight, and does not leave enough room for the mountain to 'breathe'. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the stitching error noted, there are two large flare blobs on the crest and some colour CA on the snow. Quite a few areas show the joins between sharp frames and blurry ones. To be honest, I wonder if you've made a mistake with the output-size of your stitch as the whole thing looks upscaled 200%. Also, I query the filesize vs the megapixels. If you've saved this with JPG quality 100% then that's just causing everyone to have to download too many bytes. Use the next level down in your software (e.g. 11/12, 90/100, etc) and the filesize drops dramatically yet the quality is imperceptibly different. The sky is a bit posterized and the snow blown. Lastly, there's no colourspace EXIF nor embedded colour profile, so the colours aren't properly defined. Did you use a polarizing filter? If so, that might explain the huge difference in brightness in the sky. It's a dramatic view, but the technical quality isn't at FP. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Slaunger about the top crop. This picture is also pretty noisy. I thought of being neutral, but I don't really think this picture is one of the most outstanding on the site, although a picture of this motif could be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I promoted this to QI after a change I requested was made, but I do not think it reaches FP level. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just to answer some of the questions posted here: Yeah, I used a polarizer. Otherwise the sky would have been too bright and many more snowfields blown. Don't forget that at 2,700 m the sky is already quite dark if weather is good. The lack of space over the summit is caused by the fact that there wasn't much space left actually. I would have made this pic from a bigger distance, but there was a ridge right behind me. I can't find the colorspace anywhere in the Exif data myself, not even in the RAW file. The "noise" you observed could be no real noise, but small rocks, particularly in the lower part of the pic. And: No, this pano not upscaled. --Jacek79 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request Where do you see the stiching error exactly? I've looked into the area you told me, but can't find anything wrong. --Jacek79 (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is seen in the transition between snow and blue sky at the annotation on the nomination page as a 'step' with smeared edges. Clearly a stiching error. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see an obvious stitching error on the left lower side of the Goûter hut. It's very hard to find unless you look for such blunders explicitly, but apparently, Hugin dislikes pics of mountains. I hereby give up. Sorry! --Jacek79 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthetrum luzonicum-Kadavoor-2016-09-08-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2016 at 09:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info created and uploaded by Jeevan Jose (Jkadavoor) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is one of the clearest dragonfly pictures I've seen. We can see the compound eyes, and the body is also nicely clear. Good composition and fine bokeh, in my opinion. And for what it's worth, we have no featured pictures of this species of dragonfly, as of yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 09:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual wing position too. cart-Talk 10:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nom. He is perching on Colocasia esculenta and the background is also another leaf. J e e 11:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're welcome. Thanks for the additional background information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Underexposed! --Ivar (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pruinescence is very difficult to manage; but I brightened a bit. Please check. Ivar, Ikan Kekek, W.carter, Martin Falbisoner... J e e 13:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no objection to the edit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I know what it is, this looks even better. You da' man! :) cart-Talk 13:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha; I'm behind them for years. Now know about them better than themselves. ;) J e e 13:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Jkadavoor: Please check last version, I added a bit contrast. --Ivar (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ivar! I need to lean all editing tricks. ;) J e e 13:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, overall, I think this version is the best. But please, let's have no more edits while the photo is being considered for a feature, because more edits are likely to confuse people and result in opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 13:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, clean and striking composition as well as good image quality. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree it needed that boost to contrast after lightening. -- Colin (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good detail and very simple composition. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Άγιος Κωνσταντίνος, Σέριφος 9441.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2016 at 18:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by by C messier -- C messier (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The small chapel of Agios Konstantinos at the top of castle of Serifos and the steps that lead to it. The castle has been nowadays mostly ruined. Serifos, one of the out of beaten track islands of the Cyclades is also one of the most barren, despite having sufficient water. According to the greek mythology, Serifos was petrified when Perseus, who grew up in Serifos, showed the head of Medusa to Polydektes, the king of Serifos, and his retainers as punishment for the king's attempt to marry his mother by force. According to the legend, the head is buried deep inside the hill on top of which this chapel is located. -- C messier (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A brilliant composition and an interesting place. Personally I would probably have denoised the sky a bit, but really, it is only noticeable if you pixel peep. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I pretty much agree with Slaunger in all respects. The mythological background info you supply strengthens the case for a feature even further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 22:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and simplicity. --Gnosis (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a very small amount of CA on the church, but I'm not letting that bother me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent, but really disturbing magenta CA to be corrected before getting my support (and sky a little noisy, as Slaunger said).--Jebulon (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon, done. --C messier (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Far much better !--Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - I'm not seeing the fringing in the earlier version. However, I'm seeing a drastic retroactive reshaping of the landscape to eliminate entire areas of stone. Correct me if there's something I failed to understand, but if that's what you did, I consider it a dishonest practice and now oppose a feature. I also consider it essential for you to ping everyone who's already voted on this photo, so they have a chance to pass judgment on what you've done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very different photo now, as Ikan points out. INeverCry (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: @Martin Falbisoner: @W.carter: , @Daniel Case: @Gnosis: @Jebulon: Rock formations have been removed from the foreground, and lower right, the rock wall at middle right is half gone, etc. Please review this much altered nomination. INeverCry (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The diagonal path was a strong element of the previous composition which has been severely weakened. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, by mistake (and not dishonest practice), I uploaded file 9447 that looks quite similar, but as you noticed, 9441 is better. So @Slaunger: @Martin Falbisoner: @W.carter: , @Daniel Case: @Gnosis: @Jebulon: @INeverCry: , @Ikan Kekek: and @King of Hearts: please check again. --C messier (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad a bot counts these votes... INeverCry (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I slept through the whole thing... My vote stays. cart-Talk 07:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 -- Slaunger (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the change before voting, and I decided it was not an issue. OK for me.--Jebulon (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Christian cross near Saint-Thibéry cf01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2016 at 07:52:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This doesn't do it for me. Different elements in the photo - the cross, the cloudy sky, the long road lined with telephone wires, the brush of dead tree branches and the vineyards (I think) and associated structures - can be excellent, but in this context, I find that these elements all distract me from the others, rather than forming a unified composition to me. That could just be due to some personal idiosyncrasy on my part, so I'll be interested to see others' reactions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry Christian, but the composition is without refinement for me, a bit random. The street on the left can be better positioned to the left corner, the right way to the right corner and the cross in the golden crop on the left side. After that I think this image can be featured. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --cart-Talk 08:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you Alchemist-hp, however to put the cross in the middle was clearly voluntary. I could have very well pivoted on my right, not to include all the road and to put the cross eccentrically, but I did not want that. I'm not sure to want to crop it now to correct a potential fault of taste on my part. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mezquita de Vakil, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 45-47 HDR.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 21:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Shabestan of the Vakil Mosque, Shiraz, southern Iran. The mosque was built between 1751 and 1773, during the Zand period but it was restored in the 19th century during the Qajar period. Vakil means regent, which was the title used by Karim Khan, the founder of Zand Dynasty and who established the government seat in Shiraz. All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Natural light and reflectors are not well combined here, neither is projection. --Mile (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate people who take risks and approach a subject from new innovative angles, however this one is not so fortunate. It feels like the building is "straddling" the viewer in an unbalanced way, and it's not a pleasant feeling, sorry. cart-Talk 08:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per W.carter -- Slaunger (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of this perspective Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination A pity. Poc o² 16:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Badaín - Campo y remolque.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 18:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice place, but the shadow in foreground don't help the copmosition, the grass is also, or in any cases seems to my eyes, overexposed Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite good composition, but soft focus and washed out colors, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 00:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agreed. Definitely too bright and washed-out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If I were to oppose outright, it would be on the grounds of the (slight) overexposure and the distracting rock at the bottom. But I think these might be fixable. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for your comments. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prachtige berk (Betula) in mild avondlicht. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 04.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 16:05:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Beautiful birch (Betula) in the mild evening light. Location, nature Delleboersterheide - Cats Poele, in the Netherlands. All by Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mild support. The main tree and the little one to its left are beautiful. Just about everything else in the picture, including the foreground grasses, I could take or leave. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice lighting, not the best, but nice nonetheless. My main concern is with the composition, where the cut-off trees to the far right don't really serve a purpose. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t see anything extraordinary here. Sharpness not overwhelming, nice lighting of course, but that doesn’t excuse for the overexposed trees in the background. --Kreuz schnabel 09:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I usually love birches, but this does not work for me. The light is pleasant but the lower part of the birch and pic is in shadow, not sharp enough, then there are the cropped trees and even if we seldom require perspective correction on landscapes I'm not wild about the trees to the left leaning to the right as a result of the perspective distortion in the original photo. Sorry. cart-Talk 12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per W.carter. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arctic pack ice at 81° north.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 17:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Arctic
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info This may indeed be the northernmost FP candidate; at least it is the northernmost of my collection; we couldn't go any further despite we've been on an icebreaker. The shot was taken close to this position , i.e. 481 nm from the north pole. The image has been taken at a focal length of 600mm; you may want to take that in mind judging the DoF. -- AWeith (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like very much your arctic shots (although I have not reviewed that many of them) and it gives me an urge to get back to Greenland. This one I am more indeterminate about. It is interesting that this may be the northernmost FP candidate we have had, but it seems like there is an ambiguity in what is the subject? If it were the pack ice, the small centrally placed ice bear distracts from that. If it is the ice bear, which is the subject. it really fills too little in the frame, and the boring centered composition of it does not help. Still, I also know that getting to this place is rather hard with an ice bear in its natural habitat in sight and all, so I will not oppose either. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry to disappoint you on this one, but I've been thinking much along the lines of Slaunger. While it is a good shot, there are no elements in the picture that makes it an outstanding photo. And if being far north was the only factor for an FP, we have plenty of photos, albeit of poorer quality, of the North Pole itself, courtesy of other expeditions or the ever delivering US military. The only thing that might speak for an FP here is the fact that there are very few really good shots if pack ice. Not sure that rarity is enough though. Sorry. cart-Talk 19:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I like the composition, which reminds me of pictures of endless desert emptiness with a burro or some other animal somewhere in the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger and Cart. lNeverCry 23:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan, even considering the soft horizon line, which might have something to do with it being further away than most horizon lines. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. A slight crop, moving the bear a bit more to the right, could convince me otherwise though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Let's leave the happily snoozing guy on his own... --AWeith (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phewa Lake (फेवा ताल) Sunset View 2158.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 16:13:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the mood and the composition. However it's a little soft. Since the metadata doesn't tell us what kind of camera was used, I cannot fully form an opinion on this since I do not know if the photographer could have done better. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice photo, but not special or outstanding enough for an FP for me. Sorry. cart-Talk 19:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough scene/quality for FP. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Very good QI, but not quite a FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colorium Duesseldorf.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2016 at 09:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Till - uploaded by Till - nominated by Till.niermann -- Till (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --cart-Talk 10:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cruiseship passing bacino San Marco Venise.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2016 at 20:29:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File name is a little inappropriate, the ship may be visiting but I doubt the passengers onboard the cruise ship are in Venice to wreck havoc and claim the city as their own. Also, what's with that free-floating lamp on the left? Looks really odd. cart-Talk 21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously it is not an invasion in military terms but there are thousends of passengers on every ship and there are lots of protests going on, even on these days, against this "invasion". I could easily crop out the lamp but it should give an idea how close these monsters are to the neighborhood --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived for many years in Visby, I know exactly what happens when one of these big cruise ships arrive in the harbor... Nevertheless, all material on the Wikimedia project should be neutral (see Commons:File naming and en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and unbiased regardless of our own point of view. If your picture is strong enough, it will speak for itself without any agenda-pushing title. cart-Talk 23:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 01:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - The big cruise ship on the left side of the picture gives me a kind of feeling of dislocation. This is an unusual view for a non-resident of Venice to see, and I find this a good and interesting composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do agree with cart about the filename, though. Maybe "View of Venice with cruise ship" or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed the filename ~~but I'm not able to change the subpage name~~ --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ support good, important picture, but any chance to get rid of the irritating lamp on the left side? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Martin said it, I read your comment about the lamp and had it been attached to something, I would not mind keeping it but as it is now it serves little purpose, the gondolas are enough to show the proximity to settlements. cart-Talk 11:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cloned the erratic lamppost, hoping to get stronger support ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the WB is too yellow and green. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. Also, I feel the composition to be too crowded. Either the gondolas or the cruise ship by themselves might have had a shot, but together they fight for the viewer's attention. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fight between the gondolas, the cruise ship and the famous scenery of Venice is the entire point of the photo, so when you say that a picture with these different elements can't work for you, you're saying you disagree with the entire concept of the photo and, for all practical purposes, seemingly, the point that Moroder was trying to make. He couldn't make his point effectively without having both the gondolas and the cruise ship in the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose wrong colors, WB? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the tonemap . I like this kind of tonemap for this image --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per other opposers and sharpness could be better. --Ivar (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ sorry, But the sceen is too crowded.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 12:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowded like the Bacino di San Marco when those ships pass--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Apart from any other consideration, a posterized sky is a no-never-go for me on FPC. There’s even magenta in it. --Kreuz schnabel 09:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort Jay New York September 2016 002.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 05:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 06:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This subtle composition felt borderline for FP to me, but what made me decide to support is the historical importance of the place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support in favor of alternative version. --Ivar (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not “wow” at all. The quality is good enough, but not perfect. IMO, there was no reason to take this photo towards evening. On the one hand, special atmosphere of the evening isn't “drawn” here, on the other, the evening light isn’t good and we have the rather dark, dull photo. (P.S. As a photo of an important historical place it can be nominated at Valued Picture Project). Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose As Dmitry Ivanov (more or less). Good composition, but very bad light, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is ok but the shades prevent to see the details.--Zcebeci (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the whole, while the contrast between sides may be greater than desired I like this one better. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like others I think too much of this too dark (though I'm sure that's how it was, rather than just being underexposed). It's not a remarkable enough scene and the centred composition demands more symmetry than we have here. The grass is also not photogenic. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Hubertl 14:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Info @INeverCry, Ikan Kekek, Iifar, W.carter, and Johann Jaritz: @Dmitry Ivanov, Jebulon, and Zcebeci: I have made a brighter version. If you think about it, there is no better time to take this photo (which faces south) than sunset; mid or late afternoon would have created harsh shadows in the moat which could be resolved only by weakening light (i.e. waiting until few minutes before sunset), and noon and early afternoon would simply produce awful colors. The morning is just a mirror image of afternoon, and after sunset is not possible as Governors Island is only open during the summer, until 7 PM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like them both, but this one is perhaps a bit of an improvement. INeverCry 02:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this one. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The light has became much better; the lines of the fort make the great “diagonal-symmetric” composition; but, IMO, the photo has some shortcoming, too. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Per my comments above. It is hard to be objective when we know it was actually taken in darker conditions, and raising the exposure a stop might often be acceptable, but sliding the shaddow slider to +100 has resulted in a washed out look, and highlighted the noise in the shadows, which (combined with DoF limits) rob much of the image of sharpness. It's a QI though. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, not really better --Hubertl 14:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 64.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2016 at 08:45:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all Poco a poco nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think Diego has not enough FP in his collection, therefore I nominate this one. Kidding. This is just a wonderfull picture to me, and I whish to share this with you. Mosque Shah, Isfahan, Iran.-- Jebulon (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! Thank you Jebulon, for this nomination!! And get ready for a lot of pictures from Iran, amazing subjects there, I just got started to upload them and there is still lots to come :) Poc o² 09:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely Support this nomination and would have nominated it soon if you hadn't. Fantastic mosque and fine photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose: your verticals are converging! Only joking. Very good. Can you add a geolocation? -- Colin (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: Added Poc o² 14:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. :) --cart-Talk 11:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another vertical view of Poco, well done my friend --The Photographer 12:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture --15:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Support INeverCry (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cannot improve on others' praise. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Iranian architecture. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery Central View.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2016 at 19:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info seen at QIC, created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by -- Ralf Roleček 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question There is some supersize version? --The Photographer 19:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be several monster versions if you check out the category: Interior of the Royal Albert Hall. cart-Talk 19:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 19:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As good as the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ha ha. I was planning to nominate File:Royal Albert Hall - Central View 169.jpg this evening, which is a central view taken from lower down from a box in the Grand Tier. This one here is from the gallery, which is a standing area at the very top of the hall. It's from the same level as the (soon to be FP) File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg but central. On the Open House London day, we got access only to some boxes on the Grand Tier and to part of the Gallery. The Gallery was popular with visitors and while I could easily photograph a high-resolution HDR panoramic from the side, it would not be fair for me to steal this prime position for my tripod for so many minutes. So I quickly took some HDR photos with my zoom lens and with my fisheye. This one is a fisheye photo with 5 exposures merged with PtGui to create an HDR image and then tonemapped to JPG in Lightroom. I also used Lightroom to mostly defish it, though there is still some curvature at the edges. A full rectilinear defish generates very stretched sides, and isn't so good for such a wide view, so this is a compromise. Once you crop a rectangle from the defished image, there aren't many megapixels left. So that explains why this image is 611 megapixels rather than 24 megapixels. I don't know if you would have the patience right now if I nominated my lower Grand Tier central view. Perhaps I should sit on it a while. As for this one, I'm very happy with how the view turned out. They turned on these extra green lights on the columns, very briefly, so that's something that wouldn't have stitched well, and those colour spotlights really are hard to expose for. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't support a downsize practice Support --The Photographer 23:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Photographer the picture is absolutely not downsized. This is 100%. It's just a crop. The defish process causes the middle of the frame to get smaller and the corners to stretch into a weird shape. There isn't much left over after using the rectangle cookie-cutter. There's a little more vertical height that I cropped out, but I felt the composition was better stopping at the apex of the ceiling. -- Colin (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Yes, the picture is small, but it's also outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. A bit low-res for Colin but I'll accept the explanation. Very nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hm. It's great but I'd clearly prefer this one and I don't know if we should feature them all. Aren't you going to nominate this one any more, Colin? --Code (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code, I've nominated it here. I planned to do it last night before I saw this nomination. I would love to create a Featured Set of a variety of seating positions (like View from Your Seat on the Royal Albert Hall website), but access was restricted. The first FP (File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg) is at the same level as this one but from the side, so includes much more seating and an asymmetric view. The other candidate is central like this but a couple of levels lower down, creating quite a different perspective on the hall. The other candidate is technically stronger, being a very highly detailed 171 megapixel image. But I think this one is probably the best image or view. I do appreciate this one is quite low resolution per the standards at FP for interiors. So I would understand if someone objected because it doesn't have the detail we often see in stitched photos or less-cropped 24/36 megapixel photos. The reason I could spend so long in the central box in the grand tier, taking a big stitch, is that the box has tiered seating, so other visitors can come in and get a great view without me obstructing them. Whereas on the Gallery where the photo here was taken, everyone wants to stand against the railing and have their photo taken in that great central position. It's only open to visitors one short day a year, and Diliff has been trying unsuccessfully to get access at other times [there are guided tours, but I asked, and they guide you swiftly around, so no time to set up a tripod, never mind take 63 photos for a stitch]. So I hope the circumstances and the quality of the view compensate for the lower technical standard here. Code, as a fellow stitcher, I wouldn't be offended if you opposed. -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support but per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support what for a work ... very nice! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ralf Roletschek, INeverCry, The Photographer, W.carter, and Daniel Case: @Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz, Code, and Alchemist-hp: I've examined the file and confirm that the Lightroom scale was 100% on the original upload. However the defish distortion slider causes the central portion of the image to shrink while stretching the corners. So when you take a crop from this central portion, it is smaller than the original area. To compensate, I set the scale to 135% and have uploaded a larger version at 11MP. Remember that because of the stretching, the corners won't be as sharp, and certainly not as sharp as my stitched photos. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's nice to see that you can be "only human" like the rest of us snappers once in a while. cart-Talk 17:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To err is human, to forgive divine.Alexander Pope. An Essay on Criticism (1711) --The Photographer 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco January 2014 003.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 03:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think this one is even better and you could add a little bit of contrast here. --Code (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The focus is a little soft, but still a really good picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We could (and should) feature both this image and the one suggested by Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence. It's probably too dissimilar to add as a set, so I'll put it on my bucket list. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it on my future support list. lNeverCry 06:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture. Please let me know next time you're around so we can meet in person :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 07:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pareronia hippia-Silent Valley-2016-08-15-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 02:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Pareronia hippia. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 02:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 02:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice combination of colors. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful combo. Hibiscus? And what's that "stick bug" to the left? cart-Talk 07:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes W.carter; it is Pendulous Sleeping Hibiscus (Malvaviscus penduliflorus). I added that category. Only now I noticed that stick insect! J e e 09:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I wasn't demanding that the plant (or the stick thing) must be categorized, just curious as usual. Thanks anyway. cart-Talk 10:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Zcebeci (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Comment From a compositional point of view of view, I would rotate the picture slightly clockwise such that the top of the wings ended the same place vertically to improve symmetry. The fact that it is almost aligned makes the composition a bit unbalanced in my opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger, I understand. As I rarely photograph landscapes, I didn't think about the need for straightening so far. Will think about in future processing. (As my DxO had expired, I tried in Gimp. Please check whether it is good enough to overwrite the original.) J e e 03:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jkadavoor Yes it was such a slight rotation I had in mind. Only problem is that somehow the embedded color profile was lost in the process. This appears to be a recurrent problem for users using Gimp. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 07:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-St Michael's Castle 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 01:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Aerial view (from a helicopter) of Saint Michael's Castle, Saint Petersburg, Russia. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13 -- Godot13 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Russian, very nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the photo and feel like the focus is quite adequate for an aerial photo. The light is a little hazy, but I support a feature, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 07:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teaservice on Surtout Munich Bavaria Germany.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2016 at 17:43:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all photographic and digital work by me, the rest by wonderful craftsmen from Bavaria -- Jebulon (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Something different: a tea set, with gilt silver "surtout", first third of the 18th-century, Meissen and Augsburg work in chinese style, on display at Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany. Please see file page for complete description in three languages (fr, en, de). The background color was chosen from the real one of the room, in order to match with the reflections. Original without manipulation available as first upload, transparent background version as well. -- Jebulon (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've done a good job cutting the tea service out of the background. But with the "studio" background, it looks strange to retain that green base. It's not a particularly pleasing colour, and isn't symmetrical. I don't think you'd choose that colour or the diagonal form in a studio -- you'd have the table/surface extend across the width, and choose another colour perhaps. Is there any way you could perform some Photoshop wizardry to extend that base across the width and change it to a neutral colour? -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your very interesting comment. My wife too thinks the green base is really ugly. I chose to keep it because it is real, and because I found the shadows interesting. But I'm not entirely convinced, and maybe you are right. I don't know. I'll stay like this untile the evolution of the situation here, let's see some further days.--Jebulon (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree about the shadows and I'd keep them, but cut it out and do some colour shifting or desaturation before putting it back. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know how to do !--Jebulon (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You use a color substitution brush. That way you keep the shadows and everything. I did a quick alteration of it with just a grey table, looked very good and more studio-like. Or you could use the mask tool as in this tutorial. There are a lot of Gimp tutorials on YouTube. cart-Talk 20:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes, I know that ! Thanks for reminding me !--Jebulon (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It’s really nice but the nearest cups look elliptical to me (wide-angle distortion?). The shot altogether lacks the least bit of studio quality, the lighting is too glary (maybe contrast overdone in postprocessing) and there’s too much noise in the shade parts. In a studio shot on FPC, I expect no less than perfection. --Kreuz schnabel 20:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC) review withdrawn. --Kreuz schnabel 20:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzschnabel I should point out, in case I confused things, that this isn't a studio shot (see first version uploaded). My comments was that it was altered to look like a studio shot. -- Colin (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, dear Kreuzschnabel, I'm sorry to say that your review is not very fair because not really carefull. Please read the file description page. This is not a studio picture, this is a museum picture (as almost never seen here, landscapes or buildings are easier to manage...), with no tripod allowed, no artificial light (no flash) through a glass, against the natural light... Well, I encourage you to have a look to the original upload, and to compare what I achieved with this. I think furthermore the subject has a big value in many aspects.--Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm sorry; I respect your achievement, but I don't approve of this degree of wholesale deletion in post-processing. Moreover, I like the original composition better and would have preferred for you to work with that, rather than deleting the background, which was elegant and showed depth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some work you done, but WB and "back" dont go together here. Problem is more backward lighting. --Mile (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination, it needs some rework before a renomination. Thanks for supporters...and opposers to for their useful comments.--Jebulon (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.07.10.-03-Westensee--Rundblaettrige Glockenblume.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2016 at 17:34:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family : Campanulaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredibly subtle. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, not focused enough for me to consider it outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ikan on the focus thing and for some very strange reason, the green hue of the background seems a little too rich and almost overwhelm the delicate flower, sorry. cart-Talk 07:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That you don't like the picture is your decision and is like it is. But the focus is on the right place. --Hockei (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to the supporters. --Hockei (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nathorst glacier, Svalbard, at midnight sun.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 09:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Arctic
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info When flying from Oslo to Longyearbyen I was lucky in several ways: i) the airplane was brandnew, thus the windowpanes were scratch-free; ii) the clouds left a hole exactly on top of this part of Svalbard; iii) the - almost midnight - sun shone across the glacier leaving a miraculous light; iv) I had a window seat on the right and the pilot took a right turn just across the main glacier; and v) I had my camera ready for the swift shot (despite the fact I have it almost always ready...). I was particularly intrigued by the clarity with which the glacier's surface was seen and that - by viewing from above - all the feeder streams were clearly visible. -- AWeith (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Luck is a very important ingredient in good photography. In addition to this pic's high EV and quality, it is also the kind of photo you want to have printed on canvas and hang in your living room. cart-Talk 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question It is possible to get a "other version" (same way as I mentioned before) of this with an approximate size marker, sort of like in this picture? Since it is an areal photo of snowy structures, it is very hard to tell how large tings are if you are not used to looking at arctic landscapes. Looking at this site on Google maps, it looks like the distance between the two center peaks could be around 1.5-2 km. Just me being a Wikipedia nerd again. cart-Talk 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for refusing to include a single scale bar. You may understand that in this image we find a vanishing point perspective which makes a scale valid just for a single small region. However, as I understand your desire very well, I have included a version that shows the width of some of these glacier streams as taken from the meter included in Google earth. --AWeith (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is a really great addition! The idea of some sort of scale was just a starting point, something you improved on in an excellent way. cart-Talk 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support The light of the midnight sun, something you can only fully appreciate when you've experienced it, really brings out the Hoth-like qualities of this snowscape. Compositionally it isn't as striking as it could be, but where else can the average photographer get an aerial view of a glacier that reveals it like this? So we are rewarding you for taking advantage of the luck you had. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Regarding the composition I may agree; however, the frame of an aeroplane window doesn't leave you that many degrees of freedom ... --AWeith (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to mention that the photo is taken at midnight during the midnight sun in the file's description (even if it's in the file name) otherwise people may think that the timestamp is wrong (since many are), if they even bother to look at it. Funny thing is that many nominators often write elaborate descriptions in their nomination, which will be gone from easy view in a week or two, but leave out interesting facts on the file page which will be around for years. cart-Talk 17:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The timestamp says 24 July 2015, 23:40:21 and so do the metadata, don't they? Do you see other values? I have taken your advice and included a respective sentence in the description; thank you. --AWeith (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Sometimes I am really slow in understanding; got it now. Thx again! --AWeith (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)* Your timestamp and metadata are no doubt correct, I was not referring to them, there are many other cameras out there not set to the right time and many, many photos uploaded with the wrong timestamp. That's why people sometimes mistrust such information. You entered here at the very top, but spend some time in the murky waters of the underbelly of this site and you develop a healthy cynicism. :-/ Anyway, thanks for adding the text. cart-Talk 19:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support For the light, basically per Daniel Case. I also appreciate your alt version with the distances. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama von Wien-Favoriten mit Tangente und Simmering 50mm (2 von 2).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2016 at 05:57:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Austria
Info All by Hubertl - View from above the Highway, just befor the tunnel - view from the roof of the Monte Laa building.
Support -- Hubertl 05:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support By 2050, 50% of all surfaces in the world will be covered with graffiti... INeverCry 06:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A good QI but not an interesting enough view or maybe, in the absence of that, interesting enough light for me to want to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per Ikan. But do come back at night and add light trails to the composition --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice urban take on the Kraftwerk album cover: "Die Sonne scheint mit blitze STRAAAHHHLLLL'N ..." Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice curvy lines. --cart-Talk 09:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Karelj (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petrópolis Cathedral, Saint Peter of Alcantara Church, place of Emperor Pedro II, Brazil.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2016 at 13:06:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Brazil
Info All by -- The Photographer 13:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At full size, there are a number of distinct concentric halos around the ~~lightsabre~~ church spire. Think this can be fixed? cart-Talk 13:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done This Spires is bassically light and the solution is add noise "fix". I simply rollbacked a noise reduction performed over the original file (not uploaded). Please, let me know if it's ok for you. Thanks --The Photographer 13:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still some banding even if the bands are faded into each other, but it's a cool and unusual curch pic so I'll

Support it. cart-Talk 18:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nice composition but quality could be better especially since it's only 8 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, King's comments notwithstanding. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like either version - the one with the halos or the one with the noise - enough to consider it sufficiently outstanding for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if possible, let me know any suggestions that I can use in the future. --The Photographer 23:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the composition is a good idea, but unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to give you technical advice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Albert Hall - Central View 169.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 07:29:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info A 171 megapixel panorama of the Royal Albert Hall. Taken when the hall is open to visitors on the weekend of Open House London 2016. If you have problems viewing this image in your browser, use the interactive large-image viewer, or one of the smaller downsized versions, all of which are linked from the file-description page. It's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so viewing fullscreen is best (Press F11 on Firefox). All by me. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the second of two large stitched panoramas I took in the hall. The other one here is taken from the side and up at the Gallery level. This one is from a central box on the Grand Tier. I've annotated it to show all the seating areas and other features of the hall. There are other crops/perspectives I generated from the source images (here and here) but this is my favourite in terms of composition and minimal perspective distortion, and I do not propose offering those as Alternatives in this nomination. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I said elsewhere this is definitely the best. --Code (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As great as the others. We are getting to know this place pretty well by now. Think I'll revisit some of my favorite YouTube videos from this place now and look at them from a new angle. cart-Talk 07:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have nothing to add, except thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better composition then the pre-predecessor. --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding shot. Congratulations! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A much better shot. Charles (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Great photo. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Great work $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orthetrum glaucum-Silent Valley-2016-08-14-003.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2016 at 06:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info Orthetrum glaucum, female. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 06:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Unlike males, the females of Orthetrum glaucum (and Orthetrum triangulare) are very difficult to find. I'm fortunate to find this female 20 meters away from the water stream where I found the males in Silent Valley National Park, 1400 m a.s.l. J e e 06:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good dragonfly pic always brightens the morning (I scraped the ice off the car for the first time this autumn, yikes!). I love the way the branch bisects the frame. --cart-Talk 06:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great - as always --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bokeh is a little noisy but forgivably so. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background is a bit noisy but acceptable --Zcebeci (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background looks good to me. Charles (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 05:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Svitjordbreen on Svalbard calving.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 09:10:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I bring this image to your attention for the second time. According to the initial comments I have changed brightness, contrast, and field of view. I also tried to convey the magical evening mood by adjusting the color temperatures a bit. As I wrote before, this gigantic calving took place in the later evening after the Svitjordbreen as a paramount example for a surging glacier was busy leaving small icebergs to the fjord all day. None of those calvings compared to the one in the evening shown here. We stayed at a safe distance, i.e. approximately 500 meters (one usually stays away from the glacier front for about five times its height), because we took in mind that in the past quite a few people have been hurt or even killed by ice chunks during calvings. We experienced the offshoot of the induced freakwave nevertheless. Please take the resorting gulls as a scale for what happened at the glacier front. -- AWeith (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosquée de Mohammed Bey 11.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 14:25:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this is not an appealing or interesting scene for me as a FP, neither is there good contrast. The composition doesn't convince me neiter. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri, and too dark, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.07.11.-09-Kanalschleuse Gut Klein Koenigsfoerde Krummwisch.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 10:28:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice bridge but the sky is a bit unfortunate, fence is cutting into the pic and overall it lacks a wow-factor for me. Sorry. Hop the fence and shoot from a low angle on a clear day and we're in business. cart-Talk 10:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. I also wonder whether I'd prefer the composition of a picture taken from the walkway (or at least walkable way) in the middle of the canal. But this view is probably sufficient for me to support, if retaken with more appealing light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. -- Zcebeci (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sky is as it was at this time. The world is not only beautiful when the sun is shining. Also it is a different atmosphere. The fence is a necessary safety device and belongs to the technical installation. I wonder why it should be disturbing in the picture. Not for me, but OK: I withdraw my nomination. It's a matter of taste. Thanks for reviewing.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grådö skans 2016-09-27.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 07:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Vivo - uploaded by Vivo - nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivo (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The composition is lovely, and I like the soft light (though maybe a bit of the brighter areas are posterized). However, I'm not sure whether I am ready to support a picture for its atmosphere when the focus feels so soft. I think I could, except that the near right corner is quite unfocused even at full-page size. So to sum up, for me to support this photo, I think you'd need to do a horizontal crop at least 1/4 or so of the way up. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek: Cropped, better? --Vivo (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Thanks. I'm still a little bothered by the remaining unsharp grasses in the near right corner, but more cropping would be destructive and the overall picture is peaceful and pleasant. I also really like how the railing and then the far shore of the lake bisect the picture, with the hills in the background. Whether someone considers this composition good enough for a feature is quite subjective, so I'll be interested to see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thankfully you saved most of the beautiful curve of the fence. cart-Talk 10:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color noise, lack of DoF and wrong cut (IMHO hould have been at the fence base, i.e., first version uploaded) --The Photographer 17:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that composition the best too, but most here seem to think the raspberry bushes had to be cut away. --Vivo (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, nice mood, but the quality isn't ok: color noise and sharpnes (false focus point?). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is a false focus point? I could also use a pointer on what color noise is and how to look for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only a small part of the foreground is sharp: DoF is insufficient. "color noise" take a look at 100% and you see it all over. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well able to see sharpness and unsharpness, but I don't know specifically what a false focus _point_ is. I have of course looked at this photo at full size. I guess I do see the color noise, now that I'm looking for it, even though it's not nearly as obvious as in my Google search results for "color noise". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look to the article: en:Image noise. My english is max. only 2. I'm not a english speaker, so please forgive me the accuracy. "false focus _point": if I see an image only with a few foreground sharpness, so it is for me a false focus point, but I mean more the DoF ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, und es ist kein Problem dass dein Englisch ist nicht wirklich toll. Entschuldigung dass meine Deutsch ist nicht so gut. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Ikan. For me, the flaws notwithstanding, the mood works well enough. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colour noise reduced. Better? --Vivo (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You should ping everyone who already voted or commented. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the way, I made sure to clear my cache, and I don't see any difference between the two versions. Perhaps others will. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Very nice mood, but background unsharp. -- -donald- (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. The foreground is mostly taken up by the start of a hill which isn't attractive to me. The fence leads my eyes nowhere. Power lines, a van, and a couple nondescript buildings across the water. The mood is nice, but doesn't save the whole thing. INeverCry (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The hill is the ancient monument that prompted the picture. :) --Vivo (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamburg Süd (Hamburg-Altstadt).04.29971.ajb.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 17:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Cultural heritage monuments from 1890s and 1960s along Nikolaifleet canal in Hamburg. One of many great architecture images by Ajepbah. I appreciate the composition, the perfect light, and the contrast between old and newer buildings. Uploaded and created by Ajepbah. Nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberration and focus problem (See notes), horizontals look cut --The Photographer 17:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree about the "focus problem", the bridge is just foreground. I'm really struggling to see the CA here.--ArildV (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Right. And an unsharp foreground is less than outstanding, in my opinion (and apparently in The Photographer's opinion). I like the composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Image is good, but somehow there's no wow for me (maybe it's to overcrowded). [And I can't see any CA or focus problem]. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the noted technical issues, I find the composition to have been too ambitious—I see how the photographer wanted to capture the abstract patterns of the buildings, but there's too many of them, and they clash. A simpler focus might have worked better, as well as eliminating the technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The clash of the patterns is just what I wanted to show with this picture ;-) This is the complete view, here (still with focus problem in foreground), here, and here are simpler focuses of the main subject. --Ajepbah (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like the complete view best. Some of the whites look blown, but otherwise, it's a good picture. I don't know whether it would be featured; some people might perhaps find some fault with the crop or perspective of the nearest building as well as the glary light and blown whites, but I would vote to feature it, based on the quality of the composition to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support in my eyes the composition works --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good study of the buildings in the images you link to. I think here you need to be perpendicular to the Hamburg Süd building. The bottom of the frame is a little bit soft. Possibly slightly too many elements per Daniel. I recommend you try a stitched photo, which would let you downsize a little so hiding any quality issues with a less-than-zeiss-Otus-lens and avoids the corner-softness of wide angle lenses (e.g. File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg is sharp from edge to edge, yet uses a cheap plastic prime lens and has a very wide angle of view). I find that the clinical sharpens achieved from such a technique really suits the high-tech buildings. -- Colin (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mezquita del Viernes, Shamakhi, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-27, DD 22-36 HDR PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 10:46:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Panoramic night view of the Juma (Friday) Mosque, Shamakhi, Azerbaijan. This mosque, built in 743, is considered the first one in the Caucasus after the Friday mosque of Derbent (constructed in 734). It was built during the governance period of Caliphate's vicar in the Caucasus and Dagestan. The mosque underwent numerous damages due to plunderings, earthquakes and wars and was lately reconstructed in 2009. All by me, Poc o² 10:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though sides are leaning in. Can you change this please. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question What software did you use to create this stitch and what projection? The verticals on the left aren't perfect, but not huge problem given the overall size. The image lacks a dark blue sky which makes all that black a little strong. It looks good converted to b&w, perhaps better, as one can concentrate on the patterns, form and light. Not sure how to vote yet but certainly lots of wow. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: I used Lr and it is an spherical panorama. I improved the verticals on the left. Regarding sky color, sorry, cannot offer a blue hour sky but prefer this version to b&w, specially after the WB adjustment Poc o² 20:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I've not been impressed with LR panorama other than for trivial landscape stitches. It isn't accurate or configurable enough for architecture imo. And the HDR support is a joke. I'd be interested to see what this looked like if processed by PtGui/LR. Contact me if you would like me to try. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I also use mylsef PTGui Pro, when the results with Lr are not satisfactory in my eyes. Lr gets the task done though IMHO in 90% of the cases Poc o² 22:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The towers have double contour (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: Fringes reduced Poc o² 20:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support More beautiful mosques. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Very noisy, banding and some strange artefact (see note). Put some +EV and lower temp a bit. --Mile (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. Otherwise, could be central if you are hitting it.[reply]

Support Better now. I havent seen so big flare till now. --Mile (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That strange artifact, Mile, was nothing else but a flare, it is gone now. I also reduced the noise level and retouched the WB Poc o² 20:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per issue noted by Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case I actually addressed the issue mentioned by Uoaei1 in the version of October 6th 20:44h I checked the verticals again and they look fine to me. Can you please add a note if you see any issues here? Poc o² 10:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. --Code (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being a pedantic I have to point out that with vertical control points in PTGui you could have achieved slightly better vertical alignment, but still, this is a great picture of a noteworthy subject. Very good exposure control. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent image, however, pixelation cut problem in columns (see note) --The Photographer 22:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer: I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "pixelation cut problem". I assume you meant slight frindges around the towers. Well, I've removed them (pixel level editing) but would be suprised that that was the reason to oppose this 50MPx picture Poc o² 10:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The size is excellent, however, it's like buy a big house located in a bad zone, I preffer a small house well built in a exclusive area. The problem with supersize images is that it's easy make mistakes, in this case the problem of frindges is almost fixed, however, now I can see some like a red aura (See note). BTW, buy a expensive camera with a supersize megapixel sensor not make you automatically a good photographer and similarly to have a excellent subject like this building in front of you not make automatically a FP picture. You have continually improved your quality as a photographer and increasingly difficult to find a problem in your images. --The Photographer 12:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, we're here to decide if an image is among the finest on Commons. Exactly who took the picture, how experienced they are, what equipment and techniques they used, are irrelevant to that judgement (though of course they may all be factors that lead to the flaws(s) or success(es) in the final image). It isn't about trying to 'find a problem in [Poco's] images". -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The size and image quality is important and is what I was telling him, however, more importan than the size is the tecnique used (composition, lens corrections, noise corrections, manual elements like DoF and light), a good example of what I'm telling him is the bad practice is downsize images to hide a wrong tecnique. It not was a personal comment to Poco and I admit that it seemed, however, as he is my friend I feel I can criticize him a bit more. I am usually more severe in my criticisms with Poco, Diliff and you because you are on another level and is not only photos also there are people behind the lens. --The Photographer 15:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rimberg-Panorama 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 20:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Renomination after total review and reload. The labels are most work here. Ordinary annotations don´t work in this format. Created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by User:Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe I supported this before. Great job on the labeling! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 01:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a very good picture and I'll support it as is, BUT it would be even better if there was one version of this without the text or with editable text. That way it could be use in more languages, or if someone would like to extract a part of it for some article. The text thing was solved very elegantly in this file where some of the versions were without text or editable, but there are of course other ways to do this. cart-Talk 10:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per W. Carter --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ There is too little sky and too little vertical height, like looking through a letterbox at the world. I would encourage you to take multi-row panoramics (or at least, to hold the camera vertically) to avoid this problem. Invest in a panoramic head if you like taking these pictures. Also, per Cart, there should be a version without labels. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A textless version is possible but much less instruktive. Sorry, I see no value in adding clouds at the top or leaves on the buttom. A higher focal length sometimes requires even more extreme "letterbox"-formats to show the whole possibilities of what is visible on a clear day from a mountain. --Milseburg (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree about a textless version being less instructive, having such a version allows this picture to be translated and used on other language Wikipedias. I'm a translator myself (along with many, many other Wikipedians) and as it is now I could not include this pic on Swedish Wikipedia without translating the names. Some names are the same, but as it is now it would be useless on wikis using another alphabeth, like Russian, Hebrew, Chinese, Greek, Japanese, Arabic, Tamil, Bengal, to name a few. You need to see the "bigger picture" here. What good is such a fantastic photo if it can only be used fully in a few European countries. cart-Talk 14:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the hint. In never thought that all the proper names could be translated in onother language or script. --Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention "higher focal length" and don't understand how focal length is relevant. It's a stitched image -- you can make it any width and height you like? For this view, I agree the very bottom isn't that interesting, so there isn't much point in expanding it, but for others there may be. The point is that the vertical height here is smaller than the human eye sees when looking from this viewpoint. Whether its because you've oriented your camera in Landscape mode or because you've cropped out some sky, or because your stitch didn't include much sky, the result is a scene that simply has sky removed that a viewer would see. The fact that the sky is featureless or has clouds you don't think add "value" is missing the point. Negative space is an important part of any composition. Subjects need room to breathe, and the lack of sky here isn't natural. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical hight is smaller than human eyes are able to see and the horizontal angle is much larger. So this can´t be a criterion. Think you are looking around horizontal with binoculars and low magnification. The point is, weather it makes sense to overcroud the image with volatile contend, that does not belong to the intention of the image: Information what landmarks can be seen from this lookout-tower. With a higher focal length, I can pick up distant things closer, but I need more single images. So a one-row-panorama gets longer and more "letterboxlike". Weather there is on top a second row with nothing but sky necessary, I would deny. --Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having compared against our existing panoramas, I think Alchemist is right. There's just not enough going on in this image to give wow, plus other issues raised above. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nice labeling, but not more for me. Missing somthing incl. a part of wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp, sorry. Reminds be of a Bruckner symphony; A lot of small ups and downs, but no real climax, and really long . -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said that Danes are cultural ignorants ?...(anonymous)
  - Well Mr. "Anonymous" probably located 970 km South-West from my current location :-), I made an obvious error in my analogy, Bruckners symphonies existed in so many editions and versions, and he could not make up his mind which to use - The Bruckner Problem. Here, no alternatives have been nominated. And that is a good thing. Uoaei1: I actually do like Bruckners symphonies, they are just not "FP" for me. Milseburg forgive me for hijacking your nomination to make silly comments. It is not polite. I will stop now. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Colin that it would be nice to see a little more sky to balance out the terrain, and with Cart that the text layer should be editable to allow for translations, but this is well-enough detailed all around that I feel wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger, although I like Bruckner symphonies --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hasenläufer (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 05:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC) wie schon bei der Erstkandidatur angedeutet.[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. --Karelj (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek: , @W.carter: , @Martin Falbisoner: , @Colin: , @Alchemist-hp: , @Slaunger: , @Daniel Case: , @Uoaei1: @Karelj: , @ArionEstar: , @Jebulon: , @Hasenläufer: , @INeverCry: A larger version without labels and a bit more sky is online now: . So translations can start. Whether there is no climax or quite a lot, depends on if someone is interested in the german middle-ranges or not. Views such as these up to a distance of 100 km aren´t usual. Thanks for your opinion.--Milseburg (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the version without labels and a bit more sky. It is useful. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --cart-Talk 12:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I know the Rimberg better than nearly anyone else. Very seldom you can see the Wasserkuppe and other things in this pano. --Elop (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rufous-tailed flycatcher (Myiarchus validus).JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 14:14:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background has small signs of posterization, otherwise it's very good. --Ivar (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that smoothing out the bokeh a little more would improve the picture, but that's a fairly minor issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good stuff. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:San Francisco City Hall, nighttime, September 2016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 05:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 05:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 05:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info This nighttime photo is taken from the same vantage point as the daytime photo, which is already an FP. dllu (t,c) 05:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why are the last two flag posts/flags cut so close by the crop? INeverCry 06:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I had taken a few steps backwards, ugly cars would be in the frame. I was using a prime 50mm lens so changing the field of view is out of the question. After thinking about it a bit, I decided this crop is better, but now I am not so sure. I don't consider the tight crop to be a critical flaw, but if it is, I may retake this photo as a panorama (though I try to stay away from this region at night due to several recent stabbings and robberies). dllu (t,c) 07:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's not perfect, as various compromises have to be made to take a long-exposure night photo in a city. Sharpness is not optimal but quite sufficient for me, and there are some star trails, but they aren't really too visible except at full size and aren't that prominent in the overall composition. I agree with INC that a slightly wider view would be better - or even better, a slightly narrower view that eliminates most of the blown lights (would you consider that crop?) - but I'm OK with featuring this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You have white and red pixles. Quality is not there, expecially for FF. Lens perhaps ? Light isnt so good. --Mile (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. I might have a slight preference for blue hour in order to contrast the unlit portion just below the dome from the night sky, but this is excellent nonetheless. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like Ikan's idea of a narrower crop. Not a big concern overall though, especially when your safety is at risk. INeverCry 08:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well done! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --cart-Talk 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wooden house in Dołhobrody, Poland.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 07:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I like the photo, but I don't find it special enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not remarkable enough. The lack of embedded colour profile causes it to be far too saturated in most browsers on a wide-gamut display. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown clouds, uncertain composition and slightly oversaturated colors per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Treppenturm, Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin, 150118, ako.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2016 at 12:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Code - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I regret that this isn't wowing me. The building itself is not striking to me, and the reflections aren't helping. Perhaps others may feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for the nomination, Christian. --Code (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good light, and an eye-catching composition and staircase for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple forms, and I like how "Museum" is like a little label for the image. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the reflections (hard to avoid such in this case) especially since the things reflected are very much in line with the designs next to them. cart-Talk 22:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! We can even see what's on the monitor on the ground floor. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...And how lucky/happy/smart you are with FoP in Germany !! The Louvre Pyramid is by the same architect, but no picture of it alone is acceptable here in "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment exactly, Jebulon. I don't know how many times I've had to fight so far just to get my pics of the Louvre savely trough diverse DRs. Let's hope that there'll never be any European legislation that bans FoP within the EU. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: @Martin Falbisoner: Well, we (Germans) could surely improve our copyright law if we'd expand FoP to interiors. It's really a shame that so many excellent pictures have to be deleted or won't ever be uploaded just because there's no FoP inside buildings in Germany (e.g. here or here). Nobody benefits from banning interiors, not even the authors themselves (I can't imagine that there's any architect who sells licenses for pictures of his or her building interiors). I've recently spent a whole day in a 1930ies church in Berlin making lots of stitched photographs and 360° panos. When I came back home and I was going to upload them I noticed that the architect died in the 1980ies so it won't be possible to upload the pictures before the late 2050ies! Isn't that completely crazy? (I can provide you a link to some of the pictures, just in case you're curios. The lucky Austrians have FoP for building interiors, why don't we have it everywhere in Europe? --Code (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Ansgar! Where's the petition I can sign? And yes, I'd be interested in your pics. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine, my friend: This is our problem in France for EXTERIORS ! and sculptures, and...everything ! Famous french monuments are NOT available (category:Palais de Chaillot, for instance...). Your reasoning is simple, fair, and sounds obvious. Of course here we have the same, and the french Wikimedia chapter is lobbying again and again our government, but the answer is always "non". We had a recent change, but it excludes the "commercial use", so it is still not suitable for "Commons"... I asked once directly the famous uruguayan architect Carlos Ott about his "Opera Bastille", and he was very surprised about the "no FoP in France". After that, he authorized officially freedom for photograph this building... By the way, as a frequent traveler to Greece, this is the same issue in this country. Fortunately, the law changed recently in Belgium...--Jebulon (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, Hochofen 5 -- 2016 -- 1177 (bw).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 07:19:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - When I saw the thumbnail, I was excited, because I really like this composition and expected to support it. But since almost none of the gear teeth are sharp, I don't find it successful. Very sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review. I think you're right. May be it's better to withdraw the nomination. --XRay ^talk 08:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crescent spot (Phyciodes phaon) underside.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 15:18:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but I'm surprised to see this at FPC, because it doesn't look nearly sharp enough. A QI, yes, but not more than that. Unless this is an extraordinarily rare butterfly, but given the number of photos in its category on Commons, I'm thinking that's not the case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Ikan, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I have to agree too. Shouldn't have nominated it. Charles (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danaus chrysippus - African monarch 18-2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 12:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Zcebeci - uploaded by Zcebeci - nominated by Zcebeci -- Zeynel Cebeci (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zeynel Cebeci (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've taken lots of excellent photos of the monarch, but I think File:African Queen - Danaus chrysippus 01.jpg and File:African Monarch - Danaus chrysippus 1.JPG are two that are better. Charles (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but subject is rather small (distance too far). This is much better. --Ivar (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. I agree with Ivar about which picture is better, but I think you can do better than both (or all 3) of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for reccomended cropping Zcebeci (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volkswagen Type 2, Brazil.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 01:05:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info All by -- The Photographer 01:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The bug is interesting, but the road isn't. Perhaps a much closer bottom crop might impel me to support, though I'm not totally sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The van is OK, but very bright. Looking at it at full size hurts my eyes a bit. As Ikan says, there's too much road as well. This is interesting to me, but not really wowing. lNeverCry 07:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan and Cry The footer have the same size than the header and if I change it the composition could became unbalanced, I think so, what do you think? --The Photographer 13:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as stated above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, cool car/bus/bug but the interest it evokes does not result in a wow for me, and it doesn't make up for the tech flaws already mentioned, too glary, too much road (the removal of some would not unbalance the pic IMO) and for a normal photo of a stationary object it is a tad too grainy. There are also the cut red car and the cut green parasol. I keep wanting to move the camera about 40 cm to the right or something for a better composition. cart-Talk 17:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, --Karelj (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, potentially interesting van with overly distracting background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks everybody for the votes of support and oppose, and reviews. --The Photographer 22:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eleftherios Venizelos 1917.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 21:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
I withdraw my nomination created by Agence Rol - uploaded, stitched, cropped, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Portrait of the great greek stateman Eleftherios Venizelos (Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος) in 1917. He was president of the hellenic parliament at that time. By Agence Rol. Restored by me. Original available as first upload, as I usually do. -- Jebulon (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice job on the restoration, but I'm wondering if more work would be needed for FP. Areas of exposed skin look too bright, with parts of his head blown. Actually, I'm now noticing that on the white shirt, too. I'd like to see what this photo would look like with the light somewhat decreased in white areas. Ideally, I'd also like more contrast between the head and the background, as well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shirtfront, head, and hands are too bright. lNeverCry 07:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree: no details are lost, even the folds of the shirt up to the neck. One can count each hair of his beard and on his hands !!--Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Close him the fly button :) --Neptuul (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, I noticed this interesting detail --Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose head too bright. --Karelj (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination, but I'll be back with a new version, because it is a very good, sharp, and interesting document. I'll correct the magnesium effect.--Jebulon (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamburg, Landungsbrücken -- 2016 -- 3173.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2016 at 05:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Part of the sky looks blown, but overall, an excellent photo, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support @XRay you can cut the blown part of the sky without losing anything. The composition will be better too! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it within the next days. Thanks. --XRay ^talk 09:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and fixed. --XRay ^talk 10:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like it better this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, perfect --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 09:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A harbor, some ships and interesting structures, you got my attention. :) cart-Talk 10:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well done - especially considering the difficult lighting conditions --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I disagree about the lighting. I think it looks too dark such that it is hard to make out things. I wonder if too much effort made to avoid blowing out the sky (which to me is not a big deal if handled well) and thus over-reduced the foreground. Also the colour balance looks too warm and the timestamp does not indicate late evening golden light. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin --The Photographer 17:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom with all thr cars i pretty boring. The bottom left is disturbing. Otherwise interestig but not FP imo. Sorry--93.56.65.160 20:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but IP votings not allowed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A near-miss. With different light, and without that roof in the bottom right, I might have supported. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the light comme from the wrong direction, and the sky looks overprocessed. The corner at left below is a composition no-go.--Jebulon (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks overprocesed, chaotic, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. Just a note: It isn't overprocessed. Sometimes (at the end of a wonderful day) this kind of light is natural. --XRay ^talk 11:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course yes. I know it from the real too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well The EXIF contains details of quite strong processing of exposure levels, highlights and shadows, whites and blacks. Sometimes this is necessary and works, sometimes it creates results that look "over processed". It's certainly not an out-of-camera photo, but then sometimes the camera doesn't correctly capture what you saw. I wonder, XRay, if you have your monitor set a little bright? I'm sure the light was special for you when there, but not sure it has fully translated into this JPG. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: My monitor too bright? May be. The monitor is calibrated manually. A disturbing effect is that the images look well in Lightroom, but in Firefox they look a little bit too bright. I think it's the color model of Firefox and I didn't change the configuration. I know there is a parameter (gfx.color_management.mode) and I should do so. (And yes, it is processed, but not overprocessed. ;-) Automatic mode (out of cam) does not work very well.) --XRay ^talk 12:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Lightroom and Firefox should agree. Per my notes at User:Colin/BrowserTest your image has a profile so should display correctly unless you have deliberately turned off colour management (value 0). It's pretty essential that Lightroom and browser agree. You could try resetting Firefox to factory default (not sure how to do that). Have you tricked checking the "Soft proofing" checkbox in Lightroom, which previews what the image will look like when saved as sRGB. This is getting off topic, though, so ping me on a talk page if you want to investigate further. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll check all settings but there is no time to do this within the next days. Hopefully next weekend. (But I'll read your page today.) --XRay ^talk 15:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prespa Lake 2015.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 12:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ivan.trpkov - uploaded by Ivan.trpkov - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but sorry: oversharpened and some dust spots are visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground looks wow in thumbnail, but artificial and overprocessed in full resolution. Interesting place. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 00:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose, but for what it's worth, I'd support if you would de-noise the sky and eliminate dust spots. Very interesting view and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not bothered by the foregound; it looks realistic based on my experience of snow whipped into shapes by the wind like that. However, the ridgeline at the rear has visible CA, and I would like to see the dust spots addressed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skyway Mont Blanc.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 18:25:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good idea, but a lot of the snow looks blown and posterized and the light is a little hazy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Ikan Kekek + CAs are visible; unfortunately, the general quality is low. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. A good photo to show why exposure compensation exists. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:ЕкспедицијаГрадско36.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 11:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Podles Lake and its dam with fog in the background

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacks of details anf quality Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The texture of the dark bown bush vegetation looks artificial as if the picture has been subjected to very aggressive noise reduction. Good light, average composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 00:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, especially Slaunger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is not necessarily larger than the field details -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Colony of Brünnich's guillemot (Uria lomvia) at Alkefjellet, Svalbard.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2016 at 16:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Arctic
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 17:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really wow! (On top of that, the pic almost makes me homesick for my old island with Stora Karlsö for daytrips.) --cart-Talk 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see a couple of skuas in the upper left, too. This picture is overwhelming, in a good way, and a terrific reference image as well as a really good photograph. I could easily imagine this in National Geographic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a great scenary, but a tad too dark IMO. I downloaded it to check the histogram in Lightroom, and it does seem to be underexposed and/or the highlights could be cranked up a bit to better see the white chests of the birds. I tried to make an edit with exposure increased half a stop, contrast and highlights slightly nudged up (+10 in Lightroom), shadows decreased a little (-15 in LR) and I think that improves it. This can be done without introducing any blown areas or clipping. Better to do directly on the raw though. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger so you'd rather like this version? I hate to tell you that such brightness does not reflect the real situation that we were faced with when reaching the rock. After a terrible overnight storm and a morning full of thick fog we reached the cliffs just when the fog started to lift. The scenery reminded us very much of the dark landscapes shown in the Lord of the rings trilogy. The nominated photo is attempting to bring exactly this feeling across despite a histogram leaning to the left (which the original does to an even larger extent). I guess we both agree that a photo may at times attempt to confer a certain impression; in this case it really is the situation we found. You may also agree - despite the fact that your recommendations lead to a wonderful, almost sunny version - that the nominated version does not miss anything found in the brighter one. Thank you again for your thoughts, I appreciate very much that you are considering my photos so seriously. --AWeith (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral AWeith: Indeed my proposal was aimed at making the photo look better with a more efficient use of the dynamic range - and I did not realize the scenary looked very different for you. I agree that if the scenary looked more like Mordor or another dark location in Tolkiens universe, my proposal is not at all a truthful representation, and it would be wrong to do as I suggested above. I do not get quite an impression of such a dark Lord of the Rings landscape though in the nominated photo (where is the eye of Sauron? (just kidding)). It is something in between and looks a little dull wrt lightning, although it appears to contain all the relevant details as you correctly point out. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took note of you mentioning that the original histogram leaned even more to the left. I do not think that is an argument for how it should look, that is more an indication of non-optimal exposure control! When shooting a low-contrast scene such as this in raw it is a good idea to try and shift the histogram as far to the right as possible without clipping by increasing the aperture and exposure time as much as possible wihtout introducing a too shallow depth of field and without introducing noticeable motion blur. Like in your case, you use an aperture of f/9, which with your focal length of 70 mm and your camera gives a depth of field from 13 m to infinity according to DOFMaster. Increasing the aperture to f/7.1 it only increases the near field distance by two meters to 15 m. This would give you almost four times more light intensity the sensor and a better signal/noise ratio (you have ISO 500). This can be used to either expose to the right or to lower the ISO. Both options would lead to less noise in the darker areas. If the original capture seems too bright you can always fix that in postprocessing of the raw by lowering exposure as long as there are no blown areas in the raw. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antiquarium Residenz Munich.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2016 at 17:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perspective of the Antiquarium, inside of the Residenz Palace in Munich, Bavaria, Germany.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the little annotation. cart-Talk 22:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The chairs in the middle are a bit of a distraction, but not nearly to the degree that they detract enough for me to vote against this excellent composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Jebulon, how could I not support as a Münchner. Well done. The chairs are unfortunate but not a dealbreaker --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Grüss Gott and Thanks to you ! And congratulations, you are living in a very nice and interesting city and country (Bayern)! My son works for a bavarian Gesellschaft, and was in Munich recently, celebrating his third or fourth Oktoberfest, with the suitable Lederhose. You are welcome to visit my bavarian QI collection (some jewells from the "Schatzkammer" are [[2]]). Es lebe Bayern !--Jebulon (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Jebulon, currently I'm living and working in the Cologne/Bonn metro area. Solely for professional reasons I had to move here a couple of years ago. I still try to visit Munich as often as possible (every other weekend or so) - but technically even Paris is nearer and easier to reach now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the alcoves. I also like the modern chairs lined up in the middle. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Matthew 2016-10-07 1600Z.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2016 at 15:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Meow - nominated by Well-Informed Optimist -- Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Although I am the uploader, I prefer the picture on October 2 more. -- Meow 15:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree. That's a much more striking image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although it is a good image I think your motivation is more concerned with it being in the news currently. What makes it more special than the other 2831 images in Category:250m-resolution MODIS images of tropical cyclones? They're all great. -- Colin (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO a cyclone image like hundreds more. What’s special here? --Kreuz schnabel 21:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 04:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP, but possible for VI. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because a few more pixels on the the top and I could have said my house was in this image (Seriously, per Kreuz). Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pfarrkirche Ellmau, 160618, ako.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2016 at 06:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info Parish church of Elllmau, Tyrol (Austria). They have nice baroque churches there. I hope you like this picture as much as I do. The picture also shows my personal formation very well. When I first visited Ellmau I also took a picture of the same church. You can find it here. Two years and hundreds of discussions here on FPC and QIC later now this is the result of my second approach. Thank you all for your critizism and your advice in the last years. Without your help and critizism my pictures would still look like the first one. This is a great community. --Code (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support You certainly have learned a thing or two. --cart-Talk 08:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Oversharpening, Lack of DoF and noise (see notes). BTW, I preffer this version --The Photographer 13:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ripples dispersing sunlight into underwater rainbows in Brofjorden.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2016 at 17:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Liquid
Info Here's an odd one for you: Ripples and sunlight pattern in the shallow part of Brofjorden at Holländaröd, Sweden. Under some conditions (clear water, angle of sunlight, size of ripples, depth of water) the ripples acts like prisms dispersing the sunlight into small underwater rainbows projected on the bottom. At the same time some of the other ripples becomes "magnifying glasses" and enlarge the small rainbows. -- cart-Talk 17:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 17:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This wins me over almost purely based on interest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind! And it is a 'sciency' pic more than anything else. Perhaps with a pinch of abstract art mixed into it. cart-Talk 12:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nothing to say, but support. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support refreshingly different --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprising and lovely. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting! J e e 13:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely texture and an image that would make a fine desktop. You just stare at it and keep staring. You really don't need to take any drugs. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention standing on the jetty staring down into it. Talk about a trip! (which the about 50-60 redundant photos I took shows...) :-P cart-Talk 07:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Si-o-se Pol, Isfahan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 07-15 HDR PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2016 at 17:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info The Si-o-seh pol, officially known as Allāhverdi Khan Bridge (in English “The bridge of thirty-three spans” is a bridge located in Isfahan, Iran and one of the city landmarks. With 297.76 metres (976.9 ft) it is the longest bridge over the Zayandeh River. The bridge was constructed between 1599-1602 and ranks as one of the most famous examples of Safavid bridge design. Due to high temperatures in the region during summer the Zayandeh river is dried out until winter. All by me. Poc o² 17:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 22:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The night sky might have a bit too much glow, and some quality issues around the bright lights, but overall this is a very nice image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isfahan is a big city (3rd in Iran) and there is glow in the sky everywhere you look to Poc o² 10:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, might be pollution then. Many nights NYC has nowhere near this amount of glow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - This looks very good at full-page size but less good at full size, when the blown-out lights, star trails, haze and some noise in the sky become clearer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following your comment I applied some slight corrections Poc o² 10:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's brighter now, but I think it was actually better before. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great Diego! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky over bridge a little noisy but ... it was a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Middle Multinskoe - Panoramic.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2016 at 07:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by User:ViseMoD - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How about a landscape photo with a real sense of symmetry? Perhaps some of you may find something to object to in this photo, but I've tried, and I can't. To me, this is a striking view, well photographed, and a compelling composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. I'm normally not a fan of landscapes photographed at noon, but here there is no other way to maintain the symmetry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan said it. --cart-Talk 08:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a fan of panoramas. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the clouds have a border of darker grey, which looks unrealistic. Also quite soft, especially in the background. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To me, a soft background is perfectly fine and reasonable, and after all, the closest land we see is already across the lake. I'm not sure about the clouds and didn't notice the gray borders until you mentioned them. Still a FP to me, but I do see one small dust spot now: it's to the left of the big cloud immediately to the left of the mountains that are on the right side. User:ViseMoD, if you have a chance, please remove that dust spot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Uoaei1's comment about the clouds. It's a great image and, if not the photographer, someone here has the ability to fix them. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 19:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks! --ViseMoD (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crown Kings Bavaria Munich.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 06:24:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info The crown of the Kings of Bavaria, by Marie-Étienne Nitot (1750-1809), jeweler, Jean-Baptiste Leblond and Martin-Guillaume Biennais (1764 - 1843), goldsmiths. Paris, 1806-1807. Schatzkammer, Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany, photo created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I admire this picture because it was utterly difficult to take. This is not a studio shot but an image taken inside a museum, through glass, without a tripod. Taking that into condideration, the quality is stunning. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is splendid and would normally get my support, but what did the background originally look like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ugly and busy ! With tourists, other jewels, flares etc...At that time (2013), I did not upload original versions with original background, I'm not sure I've kept the first version...--Jebulon (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand. I'll Support this based on its outstanding quality and the obvious encyclopedic/educational importance of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photo, I'm just not sure about it yet. The warm light from the lamps give the pic a rich and splendid yellow color which is good for the mood and makes for a good photo. I don't know if you intentionally kept it for that reason. The thing that bothered me most was the yellow color of the pearls since those are mostly white in crown jewels, so I did a version with color correction/WB and all of the sudden you can see that many of the settings are in white gold, the rubies take on their natural color and you can also see that the big dark stones are ~~probably blue saphires~~ wrong, see below (they looked green in the original). It is not such a splendid photo as the original, but I'm leaning towards preferring the right colors. cart-Talk 08:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks Cart. As Martin Falbisoner noticed, it is a museum picture. The room was very dark, with artificial soft light (many fragile old objects). So It's probable you are right (but not sure), anyway, I gave this picture to "Commons" as I kept it.--Jebulon (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC) And the dark stones are green emeralds and not blue saphires !--Jebulon (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for explaining. :) Maybe this photo (with the golden light) could get the same consideration as the many flowers photographed at golden hour. cart-Talk 08:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe I could try a "mix" between your work as a layer and mine, especially regarding the pearls (and diamonds), but keeping the gold (I prefer "my" cushion and "my" gold !)--Jebulon (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Worth a try, I could agree on that and keep the white gold "white". :) There is also another pic for comparing colors. cart-Talk 09:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and a third, for the set, under the same light (and wb corrected by me as too yellow ! Well, I think you are right, something is possible.)--Jebulon (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice! I'll have another go at 'my' version later tonight when I'm at home with better tools. cart-Talk 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I've had a quick try (during my job time, a shame !!) and it works very well with yours and mine as layers. Gold is gold, diamonds are ~~forever~~ euh...diamonds, and pearls are pearls. You will enjoy.--Jebulon (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure I will. :) So we both have bosses who would like it better if we were not so involved in Wikimedia projects. 'Mine' is fixed now, looking forward to your version so I can vote on it. ;) cart-Talk 19:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And many thanks to Martin Falbisoner for this surprising nomination. I encourage all the visitors of Munich to have a look at the Residenz Schatzkammer, it deserves a visit.--Jebulon (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Schnobby, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Karelj, Uoaei1,😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk), Yann,Martin Falbisoner, cart-Talk, Ikan Kekek, lNeverCry, Mile, Dear friends, please notice that I've significantly reworked the white balance, with the very useful help of Cart. Now pearls look like pearls and diamonds like diamonds. Would you be kind enough to change your vote if you disagree ? If you don't change, I'll take it that your support remains. Thank you very much. I think we have now a very good improvement, many thanks to cart-Talk, this is a good collaborative job for "Commons". But don't forget to purge your cache !--Jebulon (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And here is my vote. With the real colors, the crown looks even more splendid than before since you can see all the details better. You did a great job! cart-Talk 17:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, Jebulon. This version is much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- indeed an amazing improvement --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saw it, and i think seems -EVed. Need some light. --Mile (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What does EV stand for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Educational" or "Encyclopaedical" value.--Jebulon (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What confused me was using it as a verb with "ed". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ohh, a mess. This is photographer jargon. I mean for Exposure Value, means +/- light, but also Ency. Value. Now you gave good reson to write some jargon typos in the beggining. --Mile (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- --Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Code (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco January 2014 001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 05:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Focus is a little soft to my eyes, but still a beautiful, peaceful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Code (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zámek Děčín (by Pudelek).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 07:51:07 (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) 07:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is this taken from? Another high viewpoint or aircraft? -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Viewpoint Pastýřská stěna --Pudelek (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please use {{Location}} and {{Object location}} to geolocate. And mention the viewpoint in the file description page, to help future readers. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) --Pudelek (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support While the castle is clearly the subject, I like the contrast with the modern superhighway in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support More castles. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but no wow for me. The composition looks too compressed vertically. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good photo, but not quite a FP to me. I'd like to see more of the cliffs under the castle (both closer to and more to the right of the viewer), and the background is hazy, with buildings and smokestacks seemingly arbitrarily cut off. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Code (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brigid M. Balfour (1914-1994) - Restoration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 13:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by MRC National Institute for Medical Research - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nicely restored, but not a nice photo. Low resolution (according to nowadays standards), looks very noisy too. A light background blends with hair. Masur (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masur. I don’t think the historic value of this does make up for the flaws in photographic craftsmanship (noise and unfortunate background). --Kreuz schnabel 09:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masur. --Karelj (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait. --Yann (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Masur.--Jebulon (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 05:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Michael Ancher portrætfoto 2 - Restoration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 13:22:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Unknown photographer - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great work and thanks for doing this. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly nicely restored photo, but not a nice photo itself. A left sleeve out of focus, a right ear partially too. Masur (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Adam's response to my similar observation at the English WP's FPC page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I judge the picture as it is, and not as it was or could be. And, I stress it, I appreciate the fact of digital restoration, however it doesn't automatically qualify this pic to be a featured one. Masur (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- Welldone, also I love the look on his face Duotoned (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." J e e 01:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fine restauration. --Pugilist (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Possibly a little biased by the topic . -- Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Black and white image with a pink tint. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yann: That's just a sepia tone. More brown than pink, I'd say; In RGB, Pink would have G and B fairly equal and R significantly higher; a spot check shows that pixels from the image, to give two representative examples, are R 198 G 177 B 156 and R 19 G 16 B 9. - both in the range of yellow/orange, or, well, a sepia image, which is, historically, one of the most common types of black and white image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be fine with a pure sepia, but here I see a pink/yellow tint (most visible on the forehead). A pure sepia image would look like File:La Belle Otero, par Jean Reutlinger, sepia.jpg. Yann (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering it is not a grey-scale image, but sepia toned, the photo really should have an embedded sRGB color profile, but there is no color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. Striking my support until fixed.-- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any idea about when this photo was taken ? This should be an interesting information in the file page...--Jebulon (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A guess from 1890-1900. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find a source for the date, I'm afraid. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 05:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Shtandart (ship, 1999), Sète cf01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 16:24:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All by Christian Ferrer. Previously nominated there, I made a new edition and created some water at bottom with photoshop to put more room. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good but no wow. The ship does not stand out sufficiently against the busy background, and the cropped buildings at both sides make the framing look arbitrary. --Kreuz schnabel 18:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunately, I have to agree with Kreuzschnabel. I love the ship, but it's not well lit, for the most part, and a lot of the background is unhelpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, Kreuz and Ikan are right. cart-Talk 21:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer your current FP of this ship (File:Shtandart (ship, 1999), Sète cf02.jpg). lNeverCry 10:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I found it special... well at least I'd tried, no regrets. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A view towards Norddalsfjorden near Kilsti, Møre og Romsdal, Norway, 2013 June.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 12:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this a pretty complex composition, and it has a lot more greenery than many of your other photos that I've seen. Beautiful as usual! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the extra greenery is because this one wasn't in the Arctic. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice composition with the path. Charles (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning. Storkk (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Can't find a thing wrong with this. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb landscape. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you! :) --Ximonic (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acisoma panorpoides-Kadavoor-2016-09-07-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 06:48:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info Acisoma panorpoides male. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 06:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One of the smallest dragonfly in Asia. But it is very beautiful with its unique color and shape. A very weak flyer and will not come out of the well vegetated swamps (its preferred habitat). This much close approach is difficult as it frequently change its seats (as a security measure) which is a common behavior of small and weak insects. I'm able to capture both male and female in late evening when they are somewhat inactive. J e e 06:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I already had this on my list of possible FP noms, and I'm more impressed with the photo based on what you explained above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support appendages not in focus, but otherwise very nice. Charles (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Graveyard of Longyearbyen, Svalbard, below coal mine no.1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 10:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Norway
Info created and uploaded by AWeith - nominated by W.carter
A very different view of the Arctic. -- cart-Talk 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This doesn't wow me per se, but it's different, I find it poetic in the way that it dwarfs the people and the graves, and it makes me think. And to me, all of that combined with a very good photo can be enough reason for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's seems they die by falling rocks there... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea and interesting description on the file page, and I like graveyards north of the polar circle, but the composition does not work for me. I understand the point of having both the coal mine entrance and the crosses in the same picture as they are connected, but I think you are leaving too little room below the crosses and above the coal mine entrance giving a crammed feeling to the composition. As Alvesgaspar would most likely have said: Give the main subjects a little room to breathe in the frame. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Arctic graveyards we have pictures of are in Greenland. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case Of course not, the nomination is also from Norway. It was just the some of the arctic graveyards I had seen myself. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 00:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would prefer a composition like this or this --Ivar (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I need to make a comment here. First, I’d like to thank the jury for those valuable comments, which will certainly have an influence on my attitude regarding modern photography. Secondly, and specifically regarding my photo and the two presented as comparisons, the difference in their pictorial statement is more than obvious to me. Whilst the two comparison images are of a clear documentary character (and in that case I would only accept the first one as sufficient documentary) I wanted to bring across the mood one may get in this place. Indeed Spitsbergen is one of the most remote places on earth ever populated by mankind. Especially the graveyard of Longyearbyen shows how small man and both, his religious and industrial remains are in this extreme loneliness and harsh natural habitat. That is why I chose the long focal range which makes the rocky slope around both monuments rather steep and almost hostile to the human constructs. In addition, the two people are shown as almost insignificant and hopelessly small in this environmet. And I do emphatically oppose to the statement this image would be "crammed": it's the opposite to my opinion. Putting the important items so close to the picture’s margins even increases this impression; I tried a “wide-border“ version and it did not work; the message got lost. ... And again regarding the first of the comparison pics: the weather in Longyearbyen is very rarely as sunny as shown ; -). Again thanks for your consideration. -- AWeith (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment AWeith, it echoes very much what I see in the pic (especially about the choice of composition) and why I nominated it. I deliberately did not say anything about my own thoughts in the nomination, even if I usually talk a lot, since I wanted to see if other folks saw what I saw in the pic without any influence from me, this being such an unusual nomination. cart-Talk 08:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, AWeith. I do find that your composition is stronger than the two proposals brought forth by Iifar for the reasons you mention. In particular I agree, the presence of two small people in a big world adds value. And thank you for trying out a composition with more space below and at the top. I have not seen the result, so cannot make up my own mind about it, but I still maintain my opinion that both the people, crosses, and the mine entrance are too close to the image frame for the composition to work - for me, that is. It obviously works for others. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing composition. ■ MMXX ^talk 16:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually love the composition. Most of the compositions here at FPC just have you nodding your head saying, yes, this is an excellent composition. This one, however, is quite complex, and comprises three main parts: you have the wooden structure at the top right, the rocks forming a diagonal towards the lower right, and then finally the white crosses at the bottom. I'm impressed by the scale of this whole thing. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ivar -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good composition.--Karelj (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per dramatic composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reviewing the photo and the comments several times. J e e 04:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Radaja Seto Festival (2016) - 115.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 05:57:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Seto woman in national costume. Created and uploaded by Ivo Kruusamägi - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I like the woman and the clothing, but the background doesn't fit for me. The metal tools and the rest of it look very hard and masculine. She doesn't look like she's in her normal setting, or in a feminine setting at all. lNeverCry 07:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Considering that your opinion of what a "feminine setting" is in Estonia has been gently but thoroughly debunked, would you reconsider your opposition, which was on the basis that it looked "masculine"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The background is hard and unattractive to me, as are the rocks surrounding her legs. The woman looks lovely, but I'd prefer to see her in a softer more feminine setting - with her grandchildren around or sitting in front of her home for instance. Perhaps that sounds a bit chauvinistic, but it's not meant that way. lNeverCry 04:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women have been working the fields since the dawn of agriculture. It's only in rich families that the woman of the house was able to be just a housewife, and that was with another woman working as her maidservant. I think you should abstain, because you don't have to like the image, but your objection is based on a concept of what is masculine and what is feminine that doesn't apply in this context and only reflects your cultural background, not the subject's. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've opposed because I basically don't find the background to be complimentary to the subject. That's an aesthetic judgment, and I think a valid reason for opposing. I also don't care for the rocks at her feet. This oppose reflects my honest opinion of the photograph. lNeverCry 08:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's suggested you are being dishonest; instead, to stop pussyfooting around, the suggestion is that you have acted based on a prejudice - and an inaccurate, irrelevant one, in this case in particular - of what "feminine" means, and it's clear that I'm not the only one who had that reaction to your basis for opposing. But now it's the rocks, so whatever. Have a good night. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I slept on it, and I did have a decent night. I didn't mean to vote out of any prejudice, but perhaps I've done so and just didn't realize it. I've gone ahead and struck my oppose and switched to support. The last thing I want to do here at FPC is be unfair in my voting. My sincere apologies to Kruusamägi and any others for any discomfort I may have caused. I do love how the woman looks, and if this is a common setting, my original oppose is based on my own preferences, which isn't a good show of objectivity. lNeverCry 01:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much respect to you. That's very gracious. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe I should also start photographing more "feminine" things like children, houses, butterflies and pretty flowers instead of my usual hardware? ;) cart-Talk 07:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter yes thanks for offering! We are desperately short of good photographs of household appliances. We have a steam iron but we have no ovens, hobs, kettles, mixers, washing machines, dishwashers, tumble dryers, or vacuum cleaners. It shouldn't be too hard for you to snap a picture between your household chores. ;-) -- Colin (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Cats, kittens, puppies, and yeah, maybe a few butterflies and flowers. lNeverCry 08:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on it! But no puppies, sorry, I'm allergic to dogs. :D --cart-Talk 08:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually a very natural setting and I'm personally unable to see it as masculine. Estonia was an agrarian society rather lately (like during our national awakening time in 19th century). Also compared to western Europe, women in Estonia (or in the Nordics in general) have always had relatively lot of power. Like prior to the Northern Crusades (i.e. at viking times) wife was the ruler of the farm, when her husband was at sea (including power over hired man, that were often present in bigger farms). And after crusades everyone were equal as everyone were made slaves. There isn't that distinction, that agricultural equipment belongs to men or something. And well, on my mothers side both of my grandfather and grandmother were tractor drivers. So this newly fond equality between sexes in modern society is something I struggle to understand (I mean it was about a time for others to finally get there). And when thinking about traditional (i.e. 19th century party clothes on the example of Estonia) and thinking that there is nothing that relates them to farm work... well, first example that comes to my mind is when in Kihnu island (the only location were the habit of making and wearing traditional clothes never stopped as in rest of Estonia), I've even seen a woman weeding potatoes on a field in an old set of traditional clothing (like if it gets to rugged to be used as formal clothes, then it just gets downgraded to a new position as a working uniform). And growin our own food is still rather common in Estonia (including in my own family). So this set of clothing goes very well hand-to-hand to farm work -- at the time when traditional clothes started to look like this (and stopped developing further, as they soon went out of use for several decades), then most of the Estonians at the time still lived in farms. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Support - I'm a little frustrated that you weren't able to get better resolution on the coins on her necklaces, because it would be nice to look at those details, but I like the costume and it's a good, well-composed portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jewellery wasn't the thing I was aiming for with this image and there is lot or variability there anyway. For example on this image it is possible to see Estonian 20 cent ja 1 kroon coins, here are lot of coins I'm unable to identify, here seem to be some US coins and here you could also notice some Soviet era coins. But those coins on the image in question may even be from tsarists time (prior to I WW) as this two-headed eagle is/was the coat of arms of Russia and I think modern Rubles don't have that crown on top if it. But I wouldn't rule out that some women may even have few actual silver rubles there. But anyway that would need a separate set of images specially focusing on jewellery to really describe that. At the old time traditional clothes were hand made by the owner and non was identical to other (not so today). So a big focus on details my give a false idea, that all the clothes look like that or should look like that. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional explanation. Jewellery showed the wealth of the farm and the bearer. If has also been said, that "first you hear seto women, and then you may also see her" (considering that this amount of silver does make some noise when moved). On the time this type of jewellery emerged, Estonia was under Russian rule and there were also silver Rubles used as coins and this is how coins went to be used there. As nowadays the function of the traditional clothes has changed (it's more like to show off cultural identity or as a performance costume), then there likely isn't that much silver in the jewellery and presenting that isn't no longer important (and getting some actual silver coins is more tricky). Also considering the 20th century events I don't think much of the old silver ware has remained to the hands of the people (like in the beginning of the Soviet occupation both cultural/military/ruling elite in Estonia and rich people were targeted and often killed or sent to Siberia with their possessions confiscated).

One of the more interesting items there is this big brooch, that should be made of silver. I've heared different variations about it. Like "it is weared when she has given a birth to a girl and thus becoming a real women" (at least in some regions it was normal to have different words for a women who has given birth to a girl and who hasn't) to a one that "it is weared as long as women gives birth to a girls and then it is passed down to her". Don't really know. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support @INeverCry: The tools in the background are farming equipment (harrows, this and that), something that women have always been very involved in like this, this and this. These folk costumes evolved from the absolutely best finery the rich farmers('s wives) could create. The silver jewelry is often handed down through generations and part of the family's wealth, or the woman's dowry, to show off on special occasions. She is definitely in her element here. And judging by her strong, determined look, I bet she could easily steer one of the harrows if she wanted to. cart-Talk 08:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't agree more :) Kruusamägi (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frankly I just see the tools as the sort of background décor that you'd see in similar portraits of "people in colorful agricultural folk costume" anywhere in the world. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks Kruusamägi for giving some insights to the Estonian culture. J e e 04:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:2016.07.07.-01-Felde--Grosser Kohlweissling.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 20:40:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and sulphurs)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, some of the butterfly is behind the leaf. This FP is a nice image: File:Bielinek rzepnik podlasie mod.jpg Charles (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Focus is better here compared to the one Charles mentioned above where focus more on the wings than on the head. Considering "Butterflies on flowers" and "Butterflies on leaves" are different themes, I can support more than one FPs. J e e 03:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jee. I like both this picture and the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jee. lNeverCry 04:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture of natural camouflage. --cart-Talk 07:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jee. I think the camouflage compensates for the leaf cover in this one. The other photo has feeding too which is a bonus. -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great camouflage. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one of those in which the subject creature's ability to camouflage itself works in favor of the image's featurability. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. Even if the insect and the background have some same color tones there is enough contrast. Illustrates the camouflage in a way too. Nice photograph over all. --Ximonic (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and sulphurs)

File:Casa histórica de Boroujerdi, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 40-42 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 16:20:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info View of the rich ceiling of the interior courtyard of the Borujerdi House, a historic house located in Kashan, Iran. The house dates from 1857 and was constructed by architect Ustad Ali Maryam for a wealthy merchant as proof of love to his wife. Poc o² 16:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Is This? A spider web?--Claus 16:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spiderman house --The Photographer 17:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... or since it was built as a token for a woman, maybe a black widow. --cart-Talk 17:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness on the edges could be better, otherwise it's outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. --Laitche (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The best ceiling here, ever. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Till CA removed. Somewhere is pretty huge. Corner sharpness isnt so good. Support --Mile (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: CA removed, also the "huge" ones --Poc o² 17:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting ceiling and great picture of it. --Ximonic (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Competitions in gymnastics at the Olympics 2016. Discipline - rings. 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 18:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil - uploaded by JukoFF - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition for me. --Karelj (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tighter, vertical composition would be better. lNeverCry 00:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know; I'm liking this composition, but perhaps the opposers are right that it's not of FP quality. Could anyone point to a picture of a similar motif that's great and a FP, so I can look at it by comparison? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition and too dark imo. Sorry @Ikan Kekek: I didn't find any pic that matches your requirements on Commons, but I can point to this pic of the same athlete, with a tighter composition, that works better imho. Gyrostat (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks. I agree that that's a better composition. But the one drawback is that it doesn't make it so clear he's not on the ground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek, maybe this or this. It's hard to take those, I don't not how to improve this. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 17:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those look pretty spectacular to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per INC, and most importantly the background is too distracting. This is a great pose that needs to speak for itself. Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prospect Park New York October 2015 003.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 18:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some weeks ago in QI. I liked it when I saw it, let's see if it's FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is nice and pleasing, but it does not fully put the needle of my personal wow-o-meter past the FP threshold. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sort of like Slaunger, nice but not all the way. Several small disturbing elements and the light is in-between: not good enough to be sunny and not dramatic enough to be moody or autumny. cart-Talk 20:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger and Cart. lNeverCry 00:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've looked at this photo a couple of times. I definitely like it. The only thing that's preventing me from supporting a feature is the left crop, which feels suboptimal to me for cutting a lamppost and not being a bit to the left of that fence. I don't know if you have any other photos of this view that go further to the left, but if you do, I'd like to see them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm satisfied with this ... I do rather like the in-between light; it's a reminder that fall can be beautiful without brilliant sunshine if you get a nice water reflection or something like that. I do agree with Ikan that the left crop could be a little better. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom. @Basotxerri, ArionEstar, Slaunger, W.carter, and INeverCry: @Ikan Kekek and Daniel Case: I've uploaded a new version with more space to the left. Let me know if you need more, I can afford an additional 60 pixels. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional pixels, which marginally improves the image. I think, I will retain my neutral though. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I might possibly like a bit more space to the left, but I won't nitpick. I am satisfied. It's a very pretty, peaceful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry for only a neutral one. I was on the edge to support because I like it quite much. I just had to concider the level of all the the FPs and in the end I think it doesn't stand out enough. The place is beautiful but I think there might just be even more beautiful days to take a photograph and make a FP. --Ximonic (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harmonious and well balanced. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rio 2016 Olympic Games - Day 3 (28568743600).png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 18:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Boxing AIBA - uploaded by SKas - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the file is just too small. At 0,99 Mpx this is too far below the normal 2 Mpx limit. File name should also be changed to reflect what is actually in the picture. cart-Talk 20:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. lNeverCry 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yes, way too small. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the uploader shall tell that it was not the best idea to nominate the image in low resolution.--SKas (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and I really would like to see their feet, too. --Kreuz schnabel 18:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose For all the reasons already stated, plus the off WB and generally not being an interesting pose. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colias sareptensis - Güzel azamet 05.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2016 at 10:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Zcebeci - uploaded by Zcebeci - nominated by Zcebeci -- Zeynel Cebeci (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zeynel Cebeci (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You already have this FP, which has more details. But in this case, you mention that it's a female. Is the one in the other picture a male? I should say, while I think the other picture is properly a FP, I'm not sure about this one, which is certainly impressive compared to the norm, but not compared to the truly awe-inspiring closeups of insects we see at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for your kind comment. As you guessed that the shapes and colors of the specimens vary between the genders of lepidoptera species. Coming to the "awe-inspiring": I strongly believe that it is a bit relative term, changing person to person, isn't it? -- Zcebeci (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, of course. There's always an element of subjectivity in FP voting. After all, "wow" is expressly given as a criterion, but there is no objective definition of "wow". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is more clear for now, the "wow" should be the unscribed last criterion. -- Zcebeci (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan. Not as good or detailed as the other. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the comparison of an FP nomination to the previous uploads is not an FP evaluation rule. Could you please specify which kind of details you mention? -- Zcebeci (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zcebeci, the purpose of FP is to determine which images are "some of the finest on Commons". If there are better similar pictures already, it isn't among the finest. On various technical measures, it is weaker than the other one, and on composition, it is simply a mirror image. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The old FP is larger even if from a low resolution camera. The wing-tips are more sharp. When comparing in the same size, old FP seems much better. Same plant too; so not much difference. J e e 15:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Butterflies have their own species-spesific larval host plants and nectaring plants. This plant on the photo from alfa genus is one of principal hosts for this species. So you will take the photos of this species on the same plant in big probability. This is a natural law. For a FP review we should not use the another picture as the reference in review process. Ofcourse you could like any picture much more than the other but this can considered as a usual case in a POTY voting. But we have to evaluate any FP nomination independently from each other. Otherwise we could have only one alone picture for each theme, subject or object. -- Zcebeci (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zcebeci, if you want your image considered "independently from each other" then nominate at Commons:Quality images candidates. FP is about the "finest" and that clearly entails an evaluation against other images and always has done. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 21:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Zcebeci (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, o neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Панорама на Мариово над селото Манастир.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 16:55:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated and the sky is over-processed. Neither the blue or green look realistic. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed (clouds, glares) and over-denoised (I suppose from the loss of detail) --Kreuz schnabel 18:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 01:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposition in the sky. --Zcebeci (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's not likely to pass with five opposes at this point

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

Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, o neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.07.10.-12-Westensee--Rundblaettrige Glockenblume.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 10:33:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family : Campanulaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very light and elegant mix. cart-Talk 10:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is a bit disturbing (especially the cut-off flower on the bottom right corner and the insufficiently blurred plants at the far left), and the main flowers are not completely sharp. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with King, sorry!--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm not sure this is a FP, because KoH is right: No flower is really sharp. However, I like the colors and the textures enough to believe that if this photo were featured, that wouldn't be a bad thing. I can view this as more nearly an abstract composition and like it on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts. --Karelj (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. It lacks the simplicity of the other photo. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately also the other photo didn't find enough supporters. --Hockei (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wandeltocht rond Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Kolkend water op weg naar Lago di Pian Palù 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 05:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Swirling water towards Lago di Pian Palù. Walking around Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in the Parco nazionale dello Stelvio (Italy). All by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wowed by this. lNeverCry 06:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this because I feel almost like I'm being personally pushed along and dashed against the rocks by the current. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion, a bit long posing would be better -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Or maybe shorter. But this is neither nor. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm actually a fan of intermediate (1/15-1/60) speeds, because this is what our eyes see so it's great for showing what motion really looks like. The bubbly pattern formed at the bottom is particularly interesting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you thought you were getting at but I think a simpler image would work better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, o neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polar bear (Ursus) maritimus female with its cub, Svalbard (2).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 21:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great natural action! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awww... :) --cart-Talk 22:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really sweet, and an excellent picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very touching and well composed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KSK (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW !-- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support National Geographic --The Photographer 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 15:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another likely PotY contender. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want to join this support party. Great achievement! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it's not a record yet. This one got 29 'Support' and many of the PotYs/PotYCs just cleared 20. Anyone know what the record is for most "Support' votes during a FP nom? --cart-Talk 22:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- W.carter The "five day rule" tends to shorten the run of support for clear winners. Having a sole oppose vote guarantees a longer stay and more votes. So it doesn't follow that most support votes == most support. -- Colin (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin, Of course I realize that, I was only indulging in a little light trivia. ;) cart-Talk 22:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shhht, folks! Dont wake the evil spirits! We sailors are superstitious; if you are talking about the wind during a slack it will never come; when praising its presence it will vanish ... ; -)--AWeith (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ooops! I've lowered my voice to a wisper so the "wind" can't hear me. cart-Talk 22:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fishermen with his son on Pier Juan Griego.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2016 at 13:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
Info All by -- The Photographer 13:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aha! So this is something like what you were talking about. It looks lovely and very similar to some of the piers in our harbor on calmer evenings. Here we fish for mackerel I see that you have fixed most of the things pointed out in the first nomination. I can see that the "strange color" in the water probably is from a bit of petrol/oil spill (seen that often enough) but there is still some color noise on the pier and the mountains (see notes). Happy to support this if that is fixed. cart-Talk 14:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, let me know if noise is better now. BTW, yes this color is a effect of gasoil used by the boats. It's a personal moment yes and is what I was telling you --The Photographer 15:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better now, thanks! --cart-Talk 16:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. I think if the father's head was turned so we could also see his face in silhouette then it would work better. Eye-lines help with composition to add interest. Perhaps also if you were over to the left, so that the fishermen and sun and boat were closer together. I think, compared to your second upload, you've gone a bit too far with the processing. Restrain yourself with those sliders!!! I don't have a problem with processing an image as art rather than as "how it was" but it then has to be very well done. The image here just looks "crunchy" as a result. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendation, however, the pier was considerably destroyed in this photo, I took this photo from a column since the pier has no floor in this moment and this picture was taken a year earlier and you can seen the deterioration --The Photographer 00:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have mentioned this is a re-nomination (first nomination), after making processing changes. I know it was a while ago. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right and thanks for let me know I'll do that in the next re-nominations --The Photographer 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I feel quite the same as with the first nomination --Kreuz schnabel 21:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The things that bother the opposers just aren't bothering me. I like the composition, the light, and the moment that's captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support since I faved it on Flickr the minute I saw it there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The water looks like rubber. The two guys aren't doing anything I find exciting or interesting. I don't see the wow of this. lNeverCry 07:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are three things that detract from this photo for me: There seems to be a weird halo around the people, especially the one on the right; something is eye-catching and strange with the highlights on the folds of both of their shirts that I can't unsee; and the background (water, ship and land) especially on the left hand side appear "mushy". Storkk (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good eye. I see that halo now, too, plus a strange vertical line on the pants of the man on the right and the water above him. The Photographer, could you address these things? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fishing line --The Photographer 23:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't tell because of where it was, but of course that makes perfect sense. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - But what about the halo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some light effect, I don't know why --The Photographer 13:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 18:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 02:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USA-2016-Puerto Rico-San Juan-Castillo San Felipe del Morro 10.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 20:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13 -- Godot13 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A complex picture that you may not get at first glance but love at the third. cart-Talk 21:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the view straight ahead to the recess and "keyhole". I'm not convinced this is the very best possible crop - I'd probably like to see a little more on the right side and foreground (bottom). However, where to crop is an artist's choice, and the overall result is very good, even if I'm not as blown away as some of you are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek- I agree with your assessment, but this is the full image, no crop (perhaps my positioning could have been different)...-Godot13 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support per Ikan. Love the texture. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sparkling composition. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Melissodes apicata, f, side, Maine, Du Clos 2015-12-01-17.01 (24313844616).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 14:02:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info created by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab - uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't love the upper crop, as I'd like more room there, but you just can't argue with that degree of detail and resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are lots of similar pictures at Category:Files by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory and the Flickr page but I don't think this is the best and many of them look interesting in thumbnail but less so fullscreen. It just screams oversharpened. There's quite a number of stacking artefacts. The lighting is so harsh my eyes hurt looking at it fullscreen. Having watched the Youtube video about their Photoshopping of the stacked images, I'm not over-impressed at their technique which involves destructive edits, settings that make it "pop" rather than being accurate, and a fair bit of clone tool. I guess I prefer my bees buzzing happily rather than stuck on a pin (as this one would have been and cloned out) and blasted by unsympathetic lighting. -- Colin (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colin put words to my thoughts. Now that we have such excellent photos of happy live bees, I think we are past some of the "collect dead bugs stage". Also the wing looks frayed and damaged. cart-Talk 23:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shtandart (ship, 1999), Sète cf05.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 13:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All by -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me the framing is suboptimal, especially on the left side, where the yellow part of the boat gets cut off at an awkward location. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel the intended subject is all the decorative work up front, which this image captures quite well. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If you divided this photo in half, just to the left of the ornaments, I would probably support it, but as it is, the composition is not friendly to eye movement, as far as I'm concerned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potter at work, Jaura, India.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2016 at 08:39:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on 2 encyclopedias.created by Yann - uploaded by Yann - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's nice to see a photo where the otherwise so discouraged "top down" view actually works in favor of the picture. Well done! --cart-Talk 09:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This FP already features the same potter, and I think it's a better composition. I haven't decided about this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for pointing out the other FP, that's always useful information. I think this one is different enough, showing him in action as well as his collection of pots. The potter is sharply focused yet the wheel has motion blur. The composition is good and the quality is good considering the camera is 10 years old. -- Colin (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture of how pottering is done. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating this. The space was very small and crowded with several people. I wanted to have a larger view, but it was not possible. This is a technology which has hardly changed for 3000 years: just a plain solid wheel and a stick (at his right), to move it fast... Yann (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too "close" from the other FP of the same subject in many aspects, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one shows him making the pottery, while the other doesn't. lNeverCry 22:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree, I prefer this one than the already featured. I'd support if the other were delisted.--Jebulon (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer this one as well. I would've payed the guy an extra few $$ to hide that pile of plastic stuff we see in the back corner... lNeverCry 09:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @INeverCry: I didn't pay him anything. He was just proud to show us his skills. Yann (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comment at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Potter. J e e 12:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a little of the top could come off, but this is an excellent National Geographic-style documentary shot. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you. And with that, I Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2014K6546 - Львів.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2016 at 07:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - There's a lot I like about this photo. The sky is unnoisy, the composition is good, the flowering trees are pretty and the church and what I presume to be its auxiliary buildings are quite nice. However, I feel like the church is a bit too covered by trees, and also, compared to other urban panoramas, I think this pales. So overall, I consider this a very good QI, but I don't think the composition is compelling enough for a feature to be justified. But thank you for giving us a chance to look at and vote on it, and please submit other photos that you consider outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support works imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks over-saturated to me, also per Ikan. Please save files from Photoshop with an embedded colour profile, as otherwise the colours are not well defined. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 06:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ikan said it. --cart-Talk 10:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Potentially a featurable view but that blue just screams overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bodie September 2016 016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2016 at 06:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 09:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...10... --Basotxerri (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is something different. --Ximonic (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one from this excellent set of yours, King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support An outdoor movie set? --Laitche (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, Hochofen 2 -- 2016 -- 1115.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 07:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My nomination of the black & white version of this picture failed by one vote, with 6 supporting votes and 1 abstention. I hope this nomination fares better, as this photo is quite interesting and well-composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Striking imagery, but I'm put off by the dark walls in the foreground. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I kind of like it with the perspectives and all. But also feel it's too dark because of all the shadows. --Ximonic (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry#Germany

File:La Gomera - Roque Agando.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2016 at 08:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created by Till - uploaded by Till - nominated by Till -- Till (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome capture with its light and shadows adding depth to the landscape. I can't help thinking about King Kong looking down on his realm when I see this. cart-Talk 08:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - The view is impressive and the composition is quite good (perhaps just a bit more room over the top of the roque would be even better). I'd love less haze and more clarity in the resolution of the trees, but both the sole current FP of the roque and the other QI have similar qualities. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Minor CA especially on the top and left. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Just fix the CA on the rock formation, and it'll be perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid I don't have the tools to do this with reasonable time and effort. --Till (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed I've removed some of the worst CA. cart-Talk 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question Thank you. Btw, what kind of software did you use? --Till (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - No problem. :) I have an Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 Windows. The software used is mostly added automatically to the Exif when you use it. Look at the file's page at the bottom under "Metadata". Click on "Show extended details". That way you can mostly get info about how a photo was created. Very useful for looking for tips. cart-Talk 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Langenlois Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2016 at 18:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Winged altar in late gothic style of the parish church Langenlois, Lower Austria. Anonymous master, around 1500. Wings complemented by Helmut Kies, 1964. Photographed, uploaded and nominated by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t like the bottom crop not showing the altar to the floor, sorry. If the intention was to show the winged altar only, there’s way too much surrounding in the frame. --Kreuz schnabel 19:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A good photo, but not a FP to me because too much is softly focused and/or glary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the opposers above. cart-Talk 08:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the technical objections alone would be enough for me to oppose, but ... compositionally it is overwhelming; there's too much going on. QI for sure and possibly a VI, but not FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio de Golestán, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 27-36 HDR PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2016 at 07:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Truly resplendent, and I think the light is handled quite well in a challenging situation, because of all the glare and mirrors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This place was the first one in the Iran trip (from a long list) that wowed me...thank you for the nom Ikan! Poc o² 07:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're welcome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support OMG! Can you imagine the headache you'd get living in a place like this? --cart-Talk 08:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's true :) Poc o² 09:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good symmetry. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, always my problem with non-rectilinear projections. This does not work for me.--Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a stitching error on the left column about the height of the tops of the lower windows? Storkk (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC) ... there appear to be a few stitching errors in that vicinity (the top of wooden window frame on the next window to the right, and I think the rope just to the left of the chair, but maybe not). I'd support if stitching were fixed. Storkk (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to fix the left column to either be straight or at least more uniformly curved? I know these things are not easy, but the angle in it is jarring to me. Storkk (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Storkk: I gave it a try. Tricky edit but overall an improvement IMHO. --Poco² 19:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not perfect, but I appreciate it could be impossible, and it is certainly less jarring than it was. Weak support. Storkk (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Too much distortion for my taste. ~~And there are stitching errors.~~ --Ivar (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar, Storkk: true, thank you, there were some stitching issues. I have fixed those that Ivar noted, Storkk, if you see other issues, could you please add a note? --Poc o² 17:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral after fixed errors. --Ivar (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do realize it's distorted, but I don't think the subject is the architect's devotion to rectilinearity as much as the decorator's devotion to dazzle. One thinks of what Aldous Huxley wrote in "Heaven and Hell" about the decoration of many palaces and houses of worship making extensive use of all these previous stones and metals in order to evoke the presence of the divine. Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strips of white pixels on every corner. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't see them on my monitor, and I just looked again. How big is your monitor? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now, thanks for your feedback --Poc o² 05:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Фасад костелу монастиря капуцинів в Олеську 2010B0799.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2016 at 05:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ask for a description on the image page which I can read and understand. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Courtesy of Google Translate: "Church of St. Joseph (Wall.) Olesko." I don't know what "Wall." stands for. But the category at the bottom of the page is "Capuchin Monastery in Olesko". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As for the picture, I don't like the unsharp branches that comprise most of the area near the right margin. Otherwise, it's a perfectly good QI, but there's nothing that wows me about a scene of an off-white church with peeling plaster in a snowy environment and a (slightly noisy) blue sky. Not colorful, and might be better as a black & white photo, perhaps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. lNeverCry 07:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and INC. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral Vank, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 98-100 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2016 at 04:05:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info View of the rich ceiling of the Vank Cathedral in Isfahan, posibly the most impressive christian temple in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The construction of the Armenian Apostolic church, formaly known as Holy Savior Cathedral, began in 1606 and was finished between 1655 and 1664. The temple was dedicated to the hundreds of thousands of Armenian deportees that were resettled by Shah Abbas I during the Ottoman War of 1603-1618. Poc o² 04:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 04:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The out-of-focus element in the top right and the slightly unsharp bit in the bottom right are a little distracting, but overall this is a stellar image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not so bad, but windows could be in all. Its Armenian church. Nice too see it, when i saw movie "300" i tought they eat christian people in Persia and its place of strange beasts. --Mile (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that the perspective is slightly off from the usual dead center position. Btw, how is your neck? It seems like you spend most of your trip staring up into ceilings. ;) --cart-Talk 08:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has inspired me to create a much-needed subcategory for the cathedral's interior. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Daniel, I've created and additional category for the museum in the same ensemble and sorted the pictures among both cats. Poc o² 06:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Code (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grave of Mustapha Khaznadar in Tourbet El Bey.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 11:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please explain in what ways you think this is one of the most outstanding photos on the site, because - no offense - I can't understand why you are nominating this for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear Ikan Kekek there is no offence I am here to improve my pictures and to let them all be valuable :) I accept all your advices and I am really learning from all of you. This is an FP for me becaue the love story behind : I went to that cimetery to show the love story behind ... there is lot of graves there but I searched this particular place and I shot it as I found it ... If you were in my place how would you shoot it "in my point of view" every shot could be FP but we have to know how to" thank you again for everything :) --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My father was a professor of painting who was a guest lecturer in many places. He painted many narrative paintings. But what he always said is that every artwork has to stand or fall as a composition and form. If it succeeded as a composition per se, then the narrative content could provide another layer of meaning. But without the fundamentals, he said it was of no artistic value, or perhaps at best a crude illustration. Composers like Hector Berlioz said the same thing. Berlioz famously wrote the Symphonie fantastique. At the premiere, a program was given out to all members of the audience that laid out the protagonist's state of mind and the events that he dreamt happened. At future performances, this scenario was no longer provided by the composer, because he felt that if the audience wasn't moved by the music, he had failed. Applying this mindset to FPC would perhaps go something like this: If a photo is good but borderline for FP, but the description is fascinating or the image quite evidently depicts something unusual, that can be the tiebreaker, but if the photo is shot in poor light, with poor crops, presents an unattractive scene, and in addition, the description doesn't compellingly describe what captivated the photographer, the narrative has failed. I don't mean to suggest this photo could pass FPC if it only had a compelling description, though. The description is important for informative purposes, but it cannot be the only basis for featuring a photo. It has to be visually striking in some way.

I think you have talent as a photographer, but based on what you're saying, you need to learn how to look at your work with a critical eye. Is there a way you can pretend your work is by someone else and criticize it that way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dear Ikan Kekek thank you again... i will improve my photos and my critical eye :) --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tourbet El Bey 144.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 13:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC) nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please give us some more information about the subject of this photograph? It's amazing but I am somewhat innocent. Also I am missing a symmetry which - I guess - this room may provide apart from the ornament in front. That - unfortunately - is unsharp. Moreover, the tombs (are these tombs?) to the left and right are cropped out not very satisfactorily. --AWeith (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear AWeith this is Cimetery for the Husseinite dynasty that ruled Tunisia from 1705 until the independence of Tunisia in 1956 this is the room of the princesses there is another one for the Beys (name of the kings in Tunisia) and another one for their wives (let us say the queens) the room on itself is symmetric but the tombs are not : I tried to show lots of details in one shot an that is it --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out-of-focus foreground is very distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello :) Ok i ll do better --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mausolée libyco-punique de Dougga 122.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 11:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Haloes around the monument (probably oversharpened), and the lighting is not especially impressive. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharpening halo, colors seem unrealistic, there's this yellowish spot in the top from sun, etc Kruusamägi (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Others. lNeverCry 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I salute the others for good eyes. I had to look really hard to see the haloes. But the main thing I want to tell you is: This doesn't suck. And in case you don't know how Americans talk, that's a compliment. Try photographing this again in better light with more natural-looking color and perhaps a somewhat wider crop on both sides, and you could have a winner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi :) thank you Ikan Kekek for the compliment and the new expresion really I learned it from you and i will do better ;) for the haloes I do not sharpen a lot but it was beautiful but the clouds were overexposed when i decreased the highlight it became a bit unrealistic but i will improve it thank you everybody for the advices Kruusamägi and King of --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good luck! There is definitely a material there to get a featured photo from that location and with a better light condition you may have a winner (i.e. different time of the day, when the sun has another position). It is very common that nominated images don't get selected (one example of my own image I really like). There is no reason to feel bad about it. [btw. I was really wondering on how did this halo formed... that explained it] Kruusamägi (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bombus lucorum - Epilobium angustifolium - Keila.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 10:34:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info White-tailed bumblebee (Bombus lucorum) on the rosebay willowherb (Epilobium angustifolium). All by Ivar (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like you've captured a bumblebee takeoff/launch which is rarer than the usual bee-sitting-on-flower. cart-Talk 10:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good in general but the abdomen and the tongue not focused well for a FP--Zcebeci (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Photographing bumblebees is always a challenge for me. You can't have everything in focus, while shooting fast moving bumblebees without tripod. To have such good detail as here we have, I had to be very close - approximately 40 cm. Low distance means usually shallow DOF (only about 7 mm in this case). --Ivar (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quill-shaped cirrus cloud.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2016 at 17:05:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
Info For those who wonder about the strange camera settings, I was photographing something else when I looked up and saw this cloud and just shot two pics. A few seconds later, when I had altered the settings, the wind had already distorted the whole thing. All by me, -- cart-Talk 17:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 17:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me think of WikiProject Poetry... lNeverCry 03:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very wow. This would be a great pic for WikiProject Poetry (as INC said above). --★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's a striking image and well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare opportunity. --Ximonic (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for its unusualness; this would be what we'd expect of a contrail, not a naturally occurring cloud. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm simply not wowed but I do appreciate the unusualness, as Daniel has already pointed out --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support «Tangled Up In Blue». --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps «Blowing In The Wind» also a good current event theme song and exactly what was happening up there in the sky. cart-Talk 10:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simone Biles, na prova final da trave nos Jogos Olímpicos Rio 2016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 20:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Agência Brasil Fotografias - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not sure what others will think, but to me, this is a pretty amazing image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is a great sports pic! Concentrated action against a neutral background, even the logo (below threshold of originality) is well placed. cart-Talk 21:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 21:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But why the EXIF is not good in file page? Everything seems fine in Flickr. It also has a CC BY 3.0 Brasil license there. J e e 04:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support strictly for capturing Biles in that pose; I do wish the background could have been more neutral so we could focus on it, but sports shots this good are hard to come by around here and I'm not even sure we have any gymnastics ones. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The filename (yes, copied from Flickr) is misleading and needs to be changed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it need to be renamed. As it is Portuguese, I've no confidence to do. What about "Rio de Janeiro - Ginasta Simone Biles, dos Estados Unidos - bronze traves (29008611865).jpg"? J e e 11:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This filename seems standardized. See Category:2016 Summer Olympics, Gymnastics, August 15. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what it means? "Dutch gymnast wins gold in beams". This is not the photograph of the gold winner. J e e 13:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jee, I fixed it. ;) -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 13:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton; I move the nomination page too. J e e 13:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an FPC. We're concerned with whether or not the image meets FP standards. Please keep votes and comments focused on the merits or faults of the image. Thank you. lNeverCry 23:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: I'm sad to see my nomination page to become host of arbitrary comments. A pity… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: It saddens me too, but we'll get past it. This kind of thing is luckily a rare occurrence. lNeverCry 22:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Despite the drama, this seems to obviously be FP-eligible. The comments about the subject are quite irrelevant to the image itself. Revent^talk 22:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be more clear, we would consider the 'best' image of Hitler himself to be an FP, if it met the standards.... moral judgements about the subject are quite irrelevant. Revent^talk 22:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Theretra clotho-Kadavoor-2016-08-29-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 12:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Theretra clotho larva. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Great specimen, head and "tale" are crisp sharp. But the body looks like it wasn't perfectly in focus and it looks like even a bit pixelated.~~ Jeffrey's Image Metadata viewer says also: WARNING: Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat the colors randomly. --Ivar (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ivar for your comment. Yes; the focus plane is the center-line of this thick larva (as in my previous larva fp). We'll get some DOF in foreground and background; but may not be enough for a thick subject like this. Another option is to focus one the subject part close to camera; here on the body of the larva. I don't think it is the best way. (Here I used DxO. DxO and Gimp only mark colorspace in EXIF. I had switched to Capture One for new files. I think it is difficult to enforce color space embedding until all major software players choose that way.) J e e 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Jee is ok with it, then I can use EXIFTOOL to insert the relevant profile tonight. I know GIMP can embed colour profiles because I've done it before, but I don't use it often enough to remember, but opening a JPG in GIMP just to insert a profile would be a slightly destructive action wrt image quality. I wish there was a Commons tool we could use. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, here in this case, color-profile already added while I re-processed it in Capture One. J e e 08:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Thanks for the explanation, but the larva's body is not sharp enough for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I had started re-processing the image in Capture One to embed the color profile. This time no down-sampling too. I don't know whether it highlight the focus problem, more; but decided to leave it for a try. Please review once again. @Iifar and Ikan Kekek: . J e e 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Big improvement, pixelation is gone and the body looks sharper now. --Ivar (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the ping. The caterpillar is larger. I don't see increased clarity, but I was already supporting this because even without pinpoint focus at full size, it's a really cool creature and good enough to feature on the basis of pure fascination plus adequate quality and good composition. But why is it so much bluer now? Is that more like what it actually looked like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first version was a bit warm. I think now this is more natural like my other version. J e e 03:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for its doggedly determined longitudinality. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New York Botanical Garden November 2015 010.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 05:05:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pleasant scene for sure, but I'm not wowed by it. lNeverCry 07:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm voting this because you've given me so much to look at. I can move my eye around the nooks and crannies in this photo for a long time. However, I understand INC's reaction, and I don't know how others will react because this is so subjective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, a very good poster or wall paper for sure, and nothing wrong technically. But nothing special neither for me, I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Also the signs are disturbing. --Hockei (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. No wow.--KSK (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good photo and good edition, however the composition is not outstanding, too much empty space at bottom. In summary not close enough from the first trees IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Viewed for the first time after I came back from hiking in the Catskills (a trip which, I hope, may lead to a future FP nom, or two), this unfortunately falls short of "New York City autumn in the woods" glory as Woody Allen has done it in a few of his movies, and When Harry Met Sally did it in imitation of him. A QI, yes, but not striking enough to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mausolée libyco-punique de Dougga 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 10:25:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unsharp. Please stop nominating all your photos here indiscriminately. Since you have said you find all of your pictures potential FPs, maybe it would work best for you to wait and see whether anyone tells you in QI that a particular picture is a potential FP candidate. Even the best of the photographers here take plenty of photographs that are not of FP quality. But the difference is that most of them don't nominate everything here, and that they have a sense of what the difference is between a picture that's mediocre, one that's good and one that's great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dear Ikan Kekek I think my english was not good yesterday I will explain more why I am nominating :

I said "I am here to learn how to make all my photos FP ... it is an aim a wish :)" and I admit that they are not featurable and that lot of them are mediocre ... and the community here are giving valuable advice that is why ... shortly I ll learn what to nominate and some of them would be FP. soryy if that bothered you and th community --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grande Mosquée de Sousse 11.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 08:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too dark, insufficient detail. Good QI, but not FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok :) --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cynomys ludovicianus01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 15:47:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Selby - nominated by -- Brackenheim (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Certainly nice, but not sharp enough. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a zoo-based photograph I would imagine that it is possible to take images where the entire animal is sharp. --AWeith (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, but I have some other faults to point out. The animal's fur looks slightly overprocessed, and the background color is too' neutral, too close to the animal's color. Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Brackenheim (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abandoned Train at Janakpur station, Nepal Railways--IMG 7924.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 05:49:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Somewhat harsh light, very tight crop at right, power lines; perhaps a different angle and different light would help. lNeverCry 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for lack of sharpness, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. This is a QI, but it's definitely not one of the most outstanding pictures on the site, which is what FP means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice perspective but clearly overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thanks for ur review Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Satyrium nepalense-Silent Valley-2016-08-13-001.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 17:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
Info Satyrium nepalense, Nepal Satyrium, found at varied elevations, above 1300amsl. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 17:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 17:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harshly lit and background way too distracting to come anywhere near the high bar we've set for flower pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The lighting doesn't bother me, but I totally agree with Daniel about the background. Beautiful flower, though, so I hope to see another photo of it here in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the habitat of this plant. A few more photos available here. Note that it grows only above 1300amsl and only on sloppy hills; very difficult to climb with a tripod. Just information, not arguing; as usual. J e e 09:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I understand the challenge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose This flower looks so dainty, it really does not deserve the harsh light of a flash for its portrait. I don't mind the background as it is its natural habitat. However, the usual effects created by a single flash do indeed disturb me here; sorry. --AWeith (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks all; I got the points. J e e 02:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.07.12.-03-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Grosser Blaupfeil-Maennchen frisst Kleinlibelle.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2016 at 13:39:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info @User:ArionEstar, new version uploaded. I had to improve some noise problems that I saw only now. --Hockei (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is over the FP threshold. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vivid background color really makes this one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel said it. --cart-Talk 16:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop feels very tight though. J e e 03:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resting dragonflies are easier to capture; however, this one is excellent and the situation is particular. --AWeith (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral Vank, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 115-117 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2016 at 19:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep, nice, shouldn't this go with the other as some sort of set? Left/Right or something, not sure how this works. cart-Talk 20:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Kasir for this unexpected nom! Poc o² 06:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support though a set would be appropriate here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reno 2015 Unlimited Gold Line Up by D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 11:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created uploaded & nominated by -- WPPilot (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WPPilot (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - This is the best photo you've submitted so far, but I still don't think it's one of the most outstanding on the site, which is what a Featured Picture would be. The right and bottom crops feel random, and the sky is too noisy. I would suggest for you to spend some time at Commons:Photography critiques for appraisals of your technique and composition, and then COM:QIC, which is Quality Image Candidates. QIC has standards, but they're not nearly as high, by design, as FPC, and you will be given advice and sometimes time to edit your photos and provide new versions there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crops too tight, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ribat de Monastir 111.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 10:26:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at this more closely now, I see that the horizon is still a little, little bit tilted. Please correct this, it needs to be perfect for a FP. :) cart-Talk 11:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cemetery in the foreground dominates the image. It doesn't work for me: neither a study of the cemetery nor a great photo of the fortress. Plus the ice cream van. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a Quality Image, but I'm sorry to say that I don't find it a really good composition. I would recommend taking a photo that faces the shrine in the cemetery and fortress dead-on and cuts out most of what's in your foreground. Even then, others judging here may find the composition too complicated in the way Colin lays out above, because a lot of folks here want it to be clear which thing in the picture is the subject. I am fine with an entire view being the subject, but this picture feels somewhat random and unconvincing to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear cart-Talk done have a look now --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear Colin and Ikan Kekek so there is no "WAW" --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No "wow", I would say. But I was more specific than that. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great lighting, and I think the composition is best appreciated at full size, with the cemetery plots creating a dazzling sea of pattern. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it as a whole landscape/view of the area. It's not often you get such a splendid backdrop to a cemetery. --cart-Talk 09:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 10:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. A QI for sure but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capybara skeleton.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 01:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Specimen of skeleton of a capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), the world's largest rodent, prepared by the bone maceration technique and on display at the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP, created by Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP / Wagner Souza e Silva - uploaded by Joalpe - nominated by Joalpe -- Joalpe (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joalpe (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 02:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 06:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sturm (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chicago September 2016-20.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 22:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info One Museum Park, the tallest all-residential building in Chicago. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blown-out reflective portion is unfortunate, but otherwise very good and high-quality. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I'm inordinately bothered by the left crop. I can understand why you don't want to crop it closer, but in that case, maybe you could have included the entire building you cut. But since the picture, overall, is this good, I support, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will get my support as soon as you add a geocode. --Code (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back! Can you please tick the box in CaptureNX when you save the JPG to "embed ICC profile" (see [http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/manuals/software/CapNX2/CAPNX2_UM_EN.pdf page 162). That way the colours will be accurate for all viewers. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Static, but striking all the same. Nice to see Chicago now has a very 21st-century looking building in its skyline, too, to complement The Popular, Much-Photographed Artwork We Cannot Host Any Images of Here near the lakeshore. Ordinarily I'd say the WB was a bit too cool, but I think that works in favor of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 07:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, slightly leaning to the left though. --Laitche (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 15:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info From the National Archives and Records Administration, photographer unknown - nominated and restored by Opencooper. -- Opencooper (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Opencooper (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Oppose~~ Almost he dies, however, in the end justice was done. ~~BTW, destructive image contrast~~ --The Photographer 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Photographer: I knew the contrast might be a bit much so that's why I uploaded the image before curves adjustment at the history of File:John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.tif. If you can do a better job please use the TIFF and upload an alternate version. I'm an amateur so I'd be very willing to cede to someone who knows how to use the tools better. If the contrast is the only thing behind your oppose and a better version is shown I'd like to see your support :). Opencooper (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How many people have seen any photos of someone who's been tarred and feathered? Tarring and feathering was such a part of the American ethos in times gone by that the phrase became a common expression (and is still used today) for someone getting in big trouble. I find this image clear enough to be a good representation of the effects of this practice, and I don't get what's destructive about the contrast. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about original image with the "restoration" comparison, the new image look IMHO artificially contrasted killing detail information in shadows --The Photographer 22:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Well, yes, the shadows are darker, but what information was there in the shadows? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opencooper and Ikan. Shadow/Highlight adjustment works by reducing contrast and to adjust the range of tonal values that will be affected by this adjustment, use the Tonal Width slider. A low value causes only a limited range of tonal values within the image to be affected, whereas a high value allows the adjustment to apply to a wider range. In other words, you expand or contract the area to be adjusted by defining a tonal range. The Amount slider for Highlights provides a similar ability to darken the brightest areas. Your first reaction may be that doing so simply reduces contrast and produces a muddy image. Dynamic range is of considerable importance to image quality in both the digital and emulsion domain. Both film and digital sensors exhibit non-linear responses to the amount of light, and at the edges of the dynamic range, close to underexposure and overexposure the media will exhibit particularly non-linear responses. The non-linear dynamic response or saturation qualities of emulsion film are often considered a desirable effect by photographers, and the distortion of colour, contrast and brightness varies considerably between film stocks. There is no limit to the number of possible levels of colour on emulsion film, whereas a digital sensor stores integer numbers, producing a limited and specific possible number of colours. Banding may be visible in the unusual case that it is not obscured by noise, and detail may be lost, particularly in shadow and highlight areas. BTW, you could use use burn for shadows (See more) --The Photographer 11:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support cart-Talk 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good pic, and important historically, as a reminder that people were still literally doing this less than a century ago. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disgust, disgust, disgust! --Karelj (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

digression about Karelj's posture

- @Karelj: Can you please be more specific about your oppose? I put a bunch of time and effort into restoring this image (of course, voluntarily) and getting feedback of "disgust" isn't really the most encouraging. 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Further: Of course it's disgusting to see a picture of someone who was tarred and feathered! That doesn't make it unfeaturable, any more than a picture of another horror, like a Nazi gas chamber or a historical picture of a lynching. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh I thought it was about my restoration itself like the contrast. Guess I took it a bit too personally haha. It's actually not that bad compared to Meint's back. Opencooper (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this image a has graet historic value and it should be in Wikimdmia Commons archive without any doubt. But it has no place in the Featured picture candidates page, because the featured picture should have also some aestetic level and the tarred-and-feathered half-naked man is not in this category. What do you plan to nominate next time? Child without head, elefant excrements...? --Karelj (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely some FPs with historic/documentary value that have little or none aesthetic level, such as this. And as for unappetizing things, we recently featured this. cart-Talk 22:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karelj, It's important take a look in the rules section of this page, let me do it more easy for you:

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include

No reason
"I don't like it" and other empty assessments
"You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Btw, be careful with your comments tactless and surliness or lack of politeness, I do not want to see it blocked because of this. Thanks --The Photographer 01:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reuploaded a version of the image that is minimally leveled from the original. This time no information should be lost in the shadows. I realize now that the image didn't need so much overcontrasting. Let me know if there are any issues or if you can do a more experienced adjustment, thanks. Opencooper (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

I think that the original with all the scratches and dust give us more, however if we will do a restoration, I prefer to treat the photo with another approach:

Now we can see more of the eye, and the subject pops-up a little bit more from the background. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - You're right that you have improved upon the original, at least in the condition it's now in. But this is not a restoration, as you have greatly brightened the picture. So if the point is to restore a historical photo while respecting the choices the original photographer made, I don't think this does it. Also, your version still has a bunch of scratches and other damage in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "respecting the choices the original photographer made" Ikan Kekek one photo that old I don't see this as a choice, I see this as a limitation of the equipment. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 14:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean they didn't have the ability to add more light then? Just how old was this? :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ikan Kekek, this photo is a 1918, in closed place, and not a studio, as this seems to be just a photo for documentation purpose. You are seeming this as a artistic work, and its probably just a small register. And I don't know why I'm losing my time. Peace. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 16:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you really think a discussion is a waste of your time, next time, consider not replying. And notice that no-one else even commented, so maybe they didn't think it was worth their time to consider this version, but really, who's to know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek "no-one else even commented" that's why for me was a wast of time, not our discussion. Got it? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 20:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I was reading your remark as an insult. So no harm done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

The chosen alternative is: File:John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.jpg

File:Library Congress October 2016-1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 22:38:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Stained-glass celing in the Beaux-Arts style, Main Hall of Thomas Jefferson Building. Library of Congress, Washington DC. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there any way to make the names clearer on the left and right sides, without damaging the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add a geocode. --Code (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works both as a pleasant piece of art (desktop! desktop! desktop!) and a document of the artistic properties. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks, I love this ceiling \o/ --PierreSelim (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mallnitz Hagener Hütte Panorama NO 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 04:10:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info Panoramic view from Hagener Hütte at the mountain pass Niederer Tauern near Mallnitz (Carinthia) towards Naßfeld valley, High Tauern National Park, federal state of Salzburg. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild to moderate Support - Panoramas submitted here lately have been at such a high level. This is certainly a good pic, and I'm gradually liking the composition more, the more times I look at the photo. But what really puts it over the top to me is the labeling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and instructive. --Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid! You can even see the guy in his red windbreaker smiling to his girlfriend in a white anorak on top of the Greilkopf! You just don't know what he's saying to her ... --AWeith (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oxyopes javanus-Kadavoor-2016-06-17-002.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 17:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info Oxyopes javanus female. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 17:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 17:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I appreciate this photo for what it is, though I'm greedy and would like to see a photo of this species of spider that's focused across more of its body. But this is in any case a notable achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I would have used f/14 if taken now. Its a learning curve. :) J e e 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support DoF is fine for me. I feel the silvery-whitish pattern on the abdomen is slightly overexposed. No big deal though, it's a fine portait! --AWeith (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:View on Golden Gate Bridge from an airplane.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 21:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_States
Info created by Moritzfaehse - uploaded by Moritzfaehse - nominated by Moritzfaehse (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moritzfaehse (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An average-quality aerial photo; much of it is hazy, out of focus, noisy, etc. Nothing that would suggest FP to me. lNeverCry 23:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - INC said what I would have written. Plus, a really special photo would show SF. That's unusual weather, but FPs are supposed to be special, and quite a few of them have required a supreme effort by the photographer to be there at the right time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and INC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A real pity; the scenario would be so unusual and really worth it. But in my opinion the photo technically has too many flaws to be considered as an FP. --AWeith (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 07:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gary Kendall.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2016 at 08:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by imasku - uploaded by imasku - nominated by imasku -- Imasku (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Imasku (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, nice shot but not enough sharp for FPC Ezarateesteban 22:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot, almost there but not all the way, some unsharpness can be acceptable on hands playing but the face needs to be sharper for a portrait, sorry. --cart-Talk 16:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me; looks like so many other shots of guitarists. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:M.Nonius Balbus Nuceria equestrian Statue MANN.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 10:01:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The equestrian statue of Marcus Nonius Balbus, the Younger (inv.6104), found in the forum of Herculaneum (Campania, Italy), one of the cities of the area of the Mount Vesuvius, destroyed by the eruption of 79 CE. This marble statue was sculpted around 50 CE, and is a very nice example of the ancient imperial roman art of sculpture. It was a gift of the inhabitants of the city of Nuceria, in recognition to his benefactor. It is in very good shape, with many interesting details. On display at the Naples National Archaeological Museum, not to be confused with another similar statue of his father, Marcus Nonius Balbus, the Elder (inv.6211). The original version, and a transparent background version, are available in the file description page, as I usually do. -- Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice horse. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is an interesting photo, because if you had presented it against the original background, it would have lacked sufficient contrast to be a great photo. However, I don't really find that there's anything dishonest about your representation of this great equestrian statue itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Correios Building, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 22:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Brazil
Info Correios Building, São Paulo, Brazil. Note: Left side is a little different, is not an perspective error -- The Photographer 22:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The crop on at the top and right are a bit tight, but still FP for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - The building is beautiful, and the VW bug and people hanging out on the left side are a distraction, but it's 7:40 PM in a city, so that goes with the territory and doesn't ruin the picture for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please can you save this in sRGB. The Photographer, do you have a wide-gamut monitor? If not, then editing/saving this in AdobeRGB is about as wise as editing with a black and white monitor. Unless there is a strong case that an image requires the wider colour space of AdobeRGB, or is being sent to a printers, then please use sRGB. It won't display properly on mobile devices (which aren't colour managed) and is more likely to have posterisation issues than sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, I haven't one own, however, I think there is one cheap dell in my work. In this work I used your photomatix and ptgui recommendation. Please, do you know some comparative tool to see the difference with colors palette?. Thanks

The "comparative tool" is your eyes. If you have a wide gamut monitor (and have configured your OS to display a wide-gamut image calibrated for it), then Lightroom and Photoshop can display the image with the wider colour palette. And they can also simulate what happens when you export as sRGB (the "soft proofing" checkbox on the develop module). Often the difference is very subtle but for some saturated colours it can be noticeable, and can affect which colour channels blow out. For example, the purple acoustic discs in my Albert Hall photo were very problematic wrt colour as they saturated the blue channel in an 8-bit JPG and were "out of gamut" -- I had to make some adjustments to the blue/purple levels/saturation to get them looking right. There was a clear difference between how well my wide gamut display handled those, and how a standard gamut (sRGB) handled them. But that isn't common. My point is you can't honestly export the work as AdobeRGB if you haven't seen what the image looks like in wide-gamut and compared vs standard-gamut. So just save it as sRGB. Really, AdobeRGB is a PITA and only suitable for sending JPG/TIFF files to a print shop. The very slightly wider gamut was designed to show colours on a display that a CMYK printer can print -- it was never designed simply as a better RGB display format. It causes so many display problems for people. Look a my User:Colin/BrowserTest with a mobile device to see the problem.

As for "photomatix and ptgui recommendation" I've never used Photomatix. Diliff used it years ago before I persuaded him to try Lightroom to tonemap his HDR images. And Diliff's experiments showed that PtGui was superior to Photomatix and Photoshop in terms of generating an HDR file (e.g. 32-bit TIFF). So my recommendation is

ensure all your images in the stitch set have the same white balance settings
export from lightroom in the best quality you can (e.g. use 8-bit TIFF or 100% quality JPG for speed, or 16-bit TIFF if you have a good computer and plenty disc) Just export in sRGB unless you have a wide-gamut monitor/workflow
stitch and generate an HDR image in PtGui (save as 32-bit TIFF, or PSB if it is really huge)
import to Lightroom again and adjust the basic develop controls, apply gradients, etc, etc, to tonemap the image successfully
export as sRGB JPG with quality level 90.

-- Colin (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I faved it on Flickr. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC),[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Evening sun in Fair Haven, Svalbard.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 07:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:AWeith - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Look at that reflection in the slushy water! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a tiny bit underexposed? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Falbisoner; A quarter past nine in the evening? Btw, @Ikan Kekek: , thanks very much for nominating this; I love it, too. --AWeith (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We'll see whether anyone else considers it worthy of a feature. You can vote for your own picture, by the way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree about the underexposure, and the top crop is a little too close. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, as I would rather it be brighter still. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Martin Falbisoner: &@King of Hearts: @Ikan Kekek: : I thought changing the crop and lighting it up a bit is designated a minor change so I did it. Please have a second look. I still like it and, therefore, it gets my Support--AWeith (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AWeith, that edit increased the noise, so I think it would be good to do a slight amount of denoising now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ikan Kekek, Thanks for having spotted that. One should always have a second look after changing something. --AWeith (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support That extra bit of sky a the top settled it for me and I'll happily support it. I don't mind the extra light either, you can still tell by the angle of the light that it's evening. --cart-Talk 20:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arctic majesty. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Пороги Улу-Узень.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 17:39:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by A4ernyh - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 02:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice autumn mood. --Code (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful! A bit oversaturated maybe --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is very nice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would it be possible to get a geotag on it and perhaps some category related to autumn since the pic is very much about that? cart-Talk 07:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - This is quite a beautiful composition, but I am not feeling wowed by it because of the depiction of the water, which strikes me as a bit unrealistic. The solid white color above is posterized, rather than capturing the gurgling activity that I imagine the naked eye perceives. I'm not so convinced about the depiction of the pool below, either. But the roots, and the rhyme between them and the branched watercourses, is special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. In my opinion the top crop is too tight, but otherwise very good. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Code. Someday I will get something like this from the Catskills ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support though just a very little bit oversatured IMO Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Euploea core-Kadavoor-2016-09-08-003.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 07:28:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed butterflies)
Info created & uploaded by Jee (Jkadavoor) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just love this caterpillar, so colorful and detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ahh, you beat me to nominating this caterpillar, it's marvelous, but I think I prefer another of the pics even with the flash glint on the leaf since all the "sprouts" on the crawler are more visible there and for its composition. --cart-Talk 10:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a better picture by a long shot. I guess, since I've nominated this one, we should see what people think, but that one should definitely be nominated! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it is difficult for me to choose the best one from that series. There were a lot on my Crane berry. Now they are pupating! J e e 13:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The other one is more interesting (better composition) for me and the quality is better. --Hockei (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I would support the other one too (It's more interesting, but this one shows less signs of the artificial illumination) Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Jee, would you mind if I withdrew this nomination? I think there's a consensus that your other photo is more spectacular than this one, so I don't think there will be enough votes to feature this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it is fare to withdraw this as the other one having more support is from the same series. Thanks Ikan. J e e 05:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jee. I withdraw my nomination Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pools in Laguna 2015 by D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 23:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Three Arch Bay in Laguna Beach has been the sets for many famous movies over the years. Please take into consideration this is from a Airplane I am flying, doing about 100MPH at about 800 feet over the ground. This is NOT a drone shot, this is Full Frame Nikon D610 DSLR, taken from a Airplane. The first pool was built in 1929 by a Hollywood Producer. (High Difficulty & Danger Factor)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#UnitedStates
Info created Uploaded and nominated by -- WPPilot (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WPPilot (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Control Tower during the 2016 National Championship Air Races Pylon Racing Seminar.by D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 19:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

{Delist}} This is about as rare of a photo as you can get. Inside this tower, during racing is no mans land. This was taken using a DJI X5 MFT gimbaled system on the Osmo handle. It is a production still. The Planes on the field are exclusively racing Jets.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created nominated and uploaded by -- WPPilot (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WPPilot (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for nominating, last time we had a control center here it was from NASA in 1965. :) It's nice that the pic is taken during a takeoff or landing. A couple of questions: Do you think you could add a geocode, please? Is this the entire photo or is it possible to get a few more rows of pixels to the left to "un-crop" the lady's arm? Sorry for being picky but I look at both the persons and the planes. --cart-Talk 20:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look in the archives, this production still might be from camera setup but there could be more. As far as geocode Latitude: 39.662356 Longitude: -119.876965 I will put it in the ECIF now.. --WPPilot (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For me the wow needs to come primarily from the image itself, not the story behind it. Just from looking at the image alone it's hard to see anything special about it. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the rarity and value of the photo, but it is for me a quite cluttered and busy composition with no natural place to rest the eye (unlike the 1965 image mentioned above), with several cropped persons or objects. A good thing is that the vantage point is high inside the control room as it gives a good overview. There is some blue prominent CA fringes at the edge of the white shirts of the two persons in the lower LHS corner. If you have the raw, this is easy to correct in, e.g., Lightroom (not that this is a big issue for me, it is not something you normally notice, it is just easy to improve). The light in this high contrast scene is not appealing for me - and it is difficult to get good light both in the control room and outside at the same time. I think the image would be a good Valued Image candidate. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, perhaps a valued image?? I will not dig further on this vain but I am Determined to get to the 10 FP threshold required for listing on the "Our Photographers" page. I already nominated a aerial from last year for consideration. Anyone that cares to assist my quest is welcome to assist. --WPPilot (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for a feature per others, but yes, I think this could be a VI, and it is certainly an interesting photo, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --WPPilot (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WPPilot: I'm assuming you meant {{Withdraw}} instead of {{Delist}}. I've removed the hold on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort Pierce Inlet Fort Pierce Florida photo D Ramey Logan.jpg as this reduces you to only one nomination outstanding, but if I misinterpreted you and you actually want this nomination to continue, please revert my change here and also withdraw the other nom so that you're under the limit of two. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is perfect thanks, I would like to withdraw the other nomination, and for now stick with some of my Aerial Shots. Thanks for your help, Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel Ritz azulejos Funchal Madeira 2016 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 18:58:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any particular reason why the crop isn't centered? --cart-Talk 23:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending answer to question. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought you all didn't like centering. ;-) But seriously, once everyone is satisfied that the crop is straight and centered, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1. lNeverCry 09:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Karelj (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mausoleo de Diri Baba, Qobustan, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-27, DD 11.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 21:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info View of the Diri Baba Mausoleum, a mausoleum of Sheikh Diri Baba, located in Maraza city, Gobustan Rayon, Azerbaijan. The two-storeyed mausoleum-mosque dates from 1402 and is located on a glyptic cliff, opposite an ancient cemetery. All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - This doesn't excite or delight me the way most of your FPC nominations have, recently. The sky is duller than optimal and not everything is completely in focus. I also feel like everything is kind of overcrowded into the left side, with less than an optimal amount of space on the near side, where the staircase starts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I was about to oppose per Ikan, but then I took a look at it fullscreen and found the diagonal patterns throughout the image to be interesting enough for a feature. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 09:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011 Ochryda, Cerkiew św. Pantelejmona (11).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2016 at 11:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Marcin Konsek - uploaded by Marcin Konsek - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination of my picture! Of course I support it:) --Halavar (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 03:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I could quibble about the left crop, but this is beautiful, with excellent sharpness, light and color, and the composition is quite good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Party-poop oppose An interesting pattern and composition it definitely is, but the noisy, unsharp roofline makes me wonder what was wrong with shooting it at a lower ISO than 400. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normal oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016R1535 - Київ.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 11:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfavorable crop. The upper area is also quite unsharp. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the crop is gutsy and unusual, the kind you normally only see in photos of small hillside villages. I like it. What bothers me though is that both the pavement in front of the building and the top of the towers are unsharp. DoF too shallow, or...? --cart-Talk 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those green copper roofs are so amazing, and so many of them close together! They'd be worth a special focus just on them...--AWeith (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 01:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, especially Uoaei1. I don't like the crop because it chops off the tops of towers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered to begin with, and the crop doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black sea, black fog, sun&ice, polar sea.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 14:03:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Now for some arc/tis/tic topic for a change. Very often you experience some weather in the arctic just like in every other part of the world but the atmosphere is entirely different. Mind you the silence that prevails everywhere and the light that is really different. Judge yourself whether I brought the foggy, sunny morning mood across. -- AWeith (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pure poetry. It's one of those pictures where you have a hard time realizing that it is actually a photo and not a painting. I've seen the horizon vanish many times at sea but never like this. --cart-Talk 14:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really pure poetry. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic. --Laitche (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm going to be the party-pooper here. Yes, it's artistic, but I can't recognize anything but the sun, its reflection in water (the only place where I really recognize water), some ice and its shadow. Everything else is a total blur or black. That's probably what you saw, but to this viewer, it's opaque and not clearly informative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for artistic merit. --Pine^✉ 06:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Cart and others. Per my comments in the past on how the possible use of the image is a factor in wowing me, if this were a movie onesheet (at least in North America, based on its shape), I would find out more about it to see if it was as worth seeing as this image promised it might be. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual and highly artistic. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't mind pictures that challenge the spectator. Well executed. --Pugilist (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pugilist's argument has won me over. You're right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena#Reflections

File:Horodkivka Catholic Church RB.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 10:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe one is always happy about such an almost-ideal mirror image in the water. However, I would prefer a more close-up crop in this case, leaving the central part and the mirror image, but eliminating some of the sky and of the trees left and right. --AWeith (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I more or less agree with AWeith, but not exactly. I like the sky but would prefer a crop immediately to the right of the large evergreen that's between the church and the current right crop. I guess on the left side, cropping just to the left of the group of trees to the left of the church would probably be ideal, or perhaps just to the left of the smaller group of trees closer to the margin. We've been getting such great pictures with reflections later that there's a danger in becoming a bit jaded with merely excellent pictures, by comparison. This is quite a good picture, but I'm uncertain about voting to feature it and will think more about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. The building roof is a bit bright for my taste, but overall the quality of the photo is attractive. --Pine^✉ 07:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pine. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palestine 4 GHR 15.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 14:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by Trocaire - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice portrait but there are dust spots in the sky and a halo at his left cheek. cart-Talk 14:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the face is natural and there is no problem in the sky --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have marked some of the dust spots (there may be more) and the almost white halo next to his cheek, please see notes on the file. cart-Talk 15:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lighting is just ideal for this portrait (professional use of a flash/compulsory flash) and the man and the scenery are worth the image. However, the white halo aside his left cheek is very disturbing to me (maybe a matter of cranking up the dynamic range too much, see below). In addition I wonder why at a focal lenght of 24mm the sharpness of the background is so mediocre. Lastly, I find the overall increased contrast or elevated dynamic range disturbing, --AWeith (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, because of the dust spots and halo. If those problems are taken care of, I would expect to support this as otherwise a very good portrait. Even though like AWeith, I would prefer a clearer background, I recognize that it's legitimate to focus on the subject, and perhaps there's even a poetic point being made in blurring the background somewhat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not just because of the technical issues. I don't find the composition works for me. It could at least be cropped in on the sides to square it up around the face because we don't see enough of the vehicle to justify that orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Мајката лебед со подмlaдокот.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2016 at 09:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created by Silfiriel - uploaded by Silfiriel - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Doesn't have the pinpoint sharpness of a closeup, but still pretty clear and a beautiful composition. I think it compares favorably to this existing FP of a mother swan and her cygnets. I thought this picture was undercategorized and added the categories of Cygnus and Cygnets. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Silfiriel 10:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition but not sharp enough, and more precise description (i.e. in species level) is recommended for FP nominations -- Zcebeci (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not extraordinary. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lovely scene, but not sharp enough and lacks some contrast in the plumage for an FP on this subject. Perhaps a COM:VI for Swan and Cygnets‎. --cart-Talk 16:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. The plant reflection at top right is a small bother as well. lNeverCry 03:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I wonder if a tighter crop might take care of the sharpness issues. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boletus in Finnish forest.jpg (delist), kept

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2016 at 14:44:30

Info Really bad quality image. No way a FP. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Kruusamägi (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What makes it a bad quality image? The idea of having a big mushroom in the foreground with scenery in the background is interesting. The background bokeh seems alright to me. I don't love the unsharp branches in the foreground, but there isn't a drastic number of them. I'll consider any arguments you lay out, and of course the picture is quite small for FP, nowadays, but right now, I feel ~~Neutral~~. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fungus itself is unsharp, there are chromatic aberrations, image is tilted, lighting is lousy (specially this dark shadow in front). What else do you want? Even back in 2009 it should not had been good enough for a FP star. Good image of a fungus looks like this, but this one here is just bad. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To my eyes, you have pointed me to a photo that's less clear. True, the boletus isn't completely sharp, but it's big and pretty clear. The photo you're giving as an example is artfully soft focused on the mushrooms and almost all of the rest is bokeh. The chromatic aberrations aren't clear to me and even if the mushroom is tilted, that could be remedied. Who cares about a dark foreground? The mushroom itself is well lit except for part of the stem. I think you may have a case for delisting, but the way you're making it is going to have to appeal to someone other than me, because it sure isn't clear to me that the photo you prefer is better than this, let alone clearer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this image here the background is more as an distraction and the quality is nowhere close of being suitable for FP.

You ask "who cares". Well I do. And I think this image is unfit for the FP and so I have started this delisting. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said "who cares" about a little bit of dark foreground. I'm by no means blown away by this photo, and it's too small for FP at this point, so it's probably reasonable to nominate it for delisting. But I didn't think it was evident that the alternative you presented to me was clearly better. I just haven't found your arguments convincing so far, probably because I don't see some of what you're seeing, and otherwise, I like the idea of a big mushroom in a landscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Per Kruusamägi. lNeverCry 05:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Hockei (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I thought more about this photo. I'm not convinced it's actually bad, probably because I'm not so good at seeing chromatic aberration that isn't drastic. However, it's not at FP level. And I would cite these three FP photos in Category Boletus as more one-to-one counterpoints. All three photos could be criticized, but what they have in common that contrasts with this one is a much greater level of detail in their depiction of the boletus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still like this former POTY finalist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martin Falbisoner. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martin Falbisoner. --Code (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The appealing surface of the mushroom is not enough to counteract the cluttered nature of the rest of the composition. A nice idea, but ultimately it doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Kruusamägi, but was bothers me most about the pic is that the light temperature and direction of the flash clashes completely with the natural light in the rest of the picture, adding an unreal look to it. cart-Talk 08:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom. It will stay as a "former FP" in our archives.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martin Falbisoner --Milseburg (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martin Falbisoner. --Ralf Roleček 11:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martin Falbisoner --Karelj (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Jee 04:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014R8336 - Львів.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 05:42:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Noisy, unsharp, bad crops. Looks like a nice motif for a good photograph, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unattractive crop. --Cayambe (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "in the middle" crop doesn't work in this picture, the shapes in it require a more traditional crop. cart-Talk 09:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortaleza de Bam, Irán, 2016-09-23, DD 09.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 07:57:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info General view of Arg-e Bam, or, Bam Citadel, the largest adobe building in the world and an UNESCO world heritage site, located in Bam, Kerman Province, southeastern Iran. The origin of this enormous citadel on the Silk Road can be traced back to the Achaemenid Empire (6th-4th centuries BC) and even beyond. The citadel was destroyed by the devastating 2003 Bam earthquake that cost over 26,000 lives and is being reconstructed since then. All by me, Poc o² 07:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 07:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 08:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as is, but if you could reduce the glare just a touch without inaccurately representing what the view actually looked like, that could improve the picture further. But what I gather is that the light in Iran is often in fact harsh, and therefore should look harsh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail, almost monochrome. cart-Talk 09:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support I do wish a more striking angle might have been chosen, but I have not been there and thus I can't say a better angle is possible. Other than, color and detail is nice. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support flawless --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Стара обсерваторія Білий слон на горі Піп Іван Чорногорський.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 11:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created and uploaded by Khoroshkov - nominated by Ivar (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I half expect someone to say this is oversaturated, but it looks to me like the colors could be real, and maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not noticing any large posterized areas. Note that the texture of individual trees is evident on the next couple of hills over on the right. I think this photo is pretty spectacular, with what I consider excellent form, and I therefore understand why Ivar likes it. This is a kind of fairy tale castle pic, but it doesn't look like the fantasy front-page photo below, but instead is full of details, except where fog, clouds and distance blur them naturally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find it oversaturated at all. In some light, vegetation can take on very strong colors and since this is at an altitude of over 2000 meter, the sky can sometimes be a shade darker than usual. The clouds form a fantastic framing of the old observatory. I would like geocode though, pretty please, both {{Camera location}} and {{Object location}}. cart-Talk 17:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment object location added. Since I'm not an author, I can't help with camera location. --Ivar (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Such fine detail! Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That, unfortunately, means it was probably downsampled before upload. Still more than enough pixels for FP though given the flawlessness at 100%. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Support great! --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Majdanek Crematorium.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 23:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Bharel - uploaded by Bharel - nominated by Geagea -- -- Geagea (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Geagea (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The rocks in the foreground, the clouds behind the chimney and the birds are all distractions, and the building isn't perspective-corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 20:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Potentially great composition offset by perspective problem noted by Ikan, and I also find the clouds a little off near the top ... it looks like a GND was used, which may have been a good idea, but its effects should be cleaned up after a little bit better. Plus that top crop is really rough on one of the clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info GND was not used. Sky and the boulders in front are there for a purpose of course. The sky and green grass are signs of freedom contrary to the fences and crematorium which are prison and death. Boulders as a foreground object symbolizes the memorial. The image was not cropped so I'm unable to restore part of the clouds. I am however, able to remove the birds with spot fixing. Should be quite easy. As for perspective, I liked it but it's all a matter of taste. I might have another picture with a different perspective, I'll check it later today. Bharel (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I got those things with the rock and the foreground, really I did. But that one cloud just looks a little overdone. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominate the photo to FPC because of the contrast between the pastoral panorama and a concentration camp.-- Geagea (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I appreciate the symbolism, but I don't know if you want to have to explain it in your file description. Should the photo speak for itself? That's a question for all artists to ask themselves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 06:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lidingöbron October 2015 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 07:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info A new Type A36 tram on Lidingöbanan crossing the historic Lidingöbron (the Lidingö bridge) 24 October 2015. Lidingöbanan (the Lidingö line) was reopened on 24 October after being closed since summer 2013 for engineering works, modernisation and installation of new equipment. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the contrast of the speed of the tram with everything else that seems to be sitting still (though we know work is going on elsewhere). The motion blur is kind of hypnotic to me, in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The mood in the photo is great, but I find the sun slightly distracting, competing with the tram for the viewer's attention. It could have been totally hidden by the bridge beam. --cart-Talk 16:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all for comments and votes. Personally I like the sun here, also since you also can see the sun on the tram.--ArildV (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me the light actually works. It's rush hour (hence the deliberate use of the tram's motion blur). It's the end of the workday. These people on the tram, whom we can't see but know to be there, are looking forward to getting home and doing what they must or what they can with what light remains of the day ... and then getting up in darkness (at this time of year in Stockholm, yes) to go do it all over again, another day, another krone. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it but, as a suggestion, I would remove that street light on the left image border. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perspective splendidly captured. Not really an "It's home time" mood as there seems to be no pedestrian rushing home ... --AWeith (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Open refrigerator with food at night.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 23:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info One household appliance as requested by Colin. Not quite sure if I should nominate it for category "Objects" or "Food and drink" though. All by me, -- cart-Talk 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but the main thing I find myself saying while looking at this is: "So? It's a refrigerator." Perfectly good photo, but whatever would take it past the mundane for me isn't happening. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of us know this view very well, I guess. Nicely executed and something completely different from what we usually see here. --Code (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support modern still life with (implicitly present) best before dates signifying the inevitable memento mori... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. It is surprisingly hard to take a high quality "stock photo" of the "mundane". Particularly when Cart's fridge looked like this the day before! The subject is isolated on black -- we don't have to concern ourselves with Cart's choice of kitchen tiles or postcards or calendars. The fridge is spotless. There's a colourful and carefully arranged set of foods much like one might expect in a manufacturer's brochure. The labels are removed to avoid concerns about brands and to make it international. I query the wisdom of storing a cheese uncovered in the fridge and why there are unopened cans of coconut milk -- surely that keeps just fine in the cupboard? There's a lot of thought gone into arranging this photo, plus the effort involved in stacking to get the front-to-back in focus. I hope we get more like this at FP. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! First time I've ever "styled" a fridge. A lot of preparation and some artistic freedom for the sake of the photo. The cheese (and the ham) is normally covered with unappealing plastic. While I confess to selecting nice-looking things in the grocery store, I chose things that I normally eat or drink. I didn't want to let food go to waste. The coconut milk is usually kept in the cupboard to the right of the fridge but they made a guest appearance in the fridge as token cans, with nice reflective interesting surfaces, and I was not about to lie to you about the content. ;) The greatest bother when creating this pic was that the lamp is on a timer so it would go out during a shot from time to time. cart-Talk 08:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't so much the content of the cans (coconut milk) as the fact that generally canned food doesn't need refrigerated. But it's a minor quibble. I first thought the cheese was a cheesecake, which would explain the midnight raid on your fridge. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, small tip: If you keep canned fruit (like sliced pinapple or fruit cocktail) in the fridge, it makes for excellent cooling things in your drink, adding flavor while not diluting it. (Stirred not shaken.) There are purposes for keeping cans in the fridge. ;) cart-Talk 09:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Now you've got me googling frozen-fruit ice cubes. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Photographer 10:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love your unusal ideas. Or are they more usual than I think? Anyway, I conclude from the image that you are a vegetarian; that would put me into disenchantment. But the green bottles look just like my "Green Veltliner" bottles! Everything onkydory again! --AWeith (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Nope, not a vegetarian, the top shelf has a small plate of ham (see the description) but it's true that I eat very little red meat but love fish and sea food (these are kept in the freezer below the fridge). Unusual? That might be right though, ask Ikan... ;) cart-Talk 19:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)* Enthusiastic support Perhaps we should challenge each other more often like this ... this is an excellent result. Yes, it's a refrigerator; but I like the way cart has seen the still-life possibilities here and made the most of them. She could have just shot right into the fridge from the front with the room lit ... proof of concept, alright, but boring! Instead, she darkened the room, using only the refrigerator's internal light, and shot from a three-quarter angle with the door partway open to give it a bowtie symmetry we don't normally associate with a refrigerator (It's there, but duh, why didn't I think of that first? And the raking light, the actual source of which we do not see, with its stark contrast that results creates the kind of mood we see used so effectively in sci-fi or horror movies. As an enhancement, we get the spots of warm color against the cool (in more ways than one) background of the appliance created by the vegetables so artfully arranged.

We wonder what the story is here (well, when we pretend we don't know what it really is). Has someone gone down at night to sneak some food? Because they can't sleep? Or is there something deeper, and darker, going on? Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, Commons:Photo Challenge. You are welcome to suggest ideas and to go out and take photos for the challenge. There are plenty FPs that were also PC nominations. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I know PC exists ... however, I think I only have time to either do this or that, and I have chosen this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I entirely agree. Praise to Alfred Hitchcock and cart! ... And by the way: the image is all too familiar for me per your remarks on people sneaking for food. --AWeith (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Wandeltocht rond Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Huis tussen de bomen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 04:56:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info Walking around Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in the Parco nazionale dello Stelvio (Italy). House among the trees. All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me this (ordinary) home in this setting very special. * Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I like the composition, except for the glary light in the sky, but there isn't that much of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Small correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the center line in the cabin, it's still not perfectly straight. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still not fixed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The line is exactly vertical. See note.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. Take your fingernail, place it on the lowest visible part of the line, and then scroll up on your monitor. Your fingernail will be to the right of the line by quite a few pixels. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Small correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect, thanks. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rather like this "Cabin in the Woods". --cart-Talk 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is definitely an image of high technical quality but, after having stared at it for a while, it seems to lack wow for an FP.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I was going to oppose based on Kirill's !vote, but ... I looked at closely and there's a logic to it. I like the conflict/dynamic between the rectilinearity of the house and the sprawling chaos of the surrounding forest. Sort of like this picture I took a long time ago, but more intense. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose largely due to composition. --Pine^✉ 06:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Description has nothing to do with this obviously abandoned house. Zero information value. Mediocre composition.--Ermell (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

St Mary-le-Bow, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 12:42:37 (UTC)

The interior, facing the altar
The organ

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 20:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as usual. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we nominate more than 1 image at one? Sorry, but where is the rule thatfor? --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wladyslaw, on Commons:Featured picture candidates#Adding a new nomination there are two boxes for creating nominations: one for single files and one for sets of files. You can read about it a bit further up on the page under "Set nominations". cart-Talk 16:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category is missing kasir. --Mile (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ainava pie Sventes (autoceļš V698).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 11:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Kikos - uploaded by Kikos - nominated by Kikos -- Kikos (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kikos (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor sharpness and oversaturated --A.Savin 16:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin --cart-Talk 16:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin. lNeverCry 20:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Good picture for the cover of a fantasy novel, but not good for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Any scene shot into the sun with a foreground that's not totally dark will have inevitably have a certain look to it. Saturation of the greens is a bit high for my tastes but acceptable IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, who takes the words right out of my mouth. I would thus have to add that this is another example of "What Commons featured pictures look like on Instagram". And the overprocessing is really evident the closer you look to the sun. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the composition a lot, but I must agree that sharpness is lacking. I think that a photo taken from the same location, in the same conditions, but with a better camera, would be a good fit for Commons FP. --Pine^✉ 06:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Euploea core-Kadavoor-2016-09-08-002.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 17:52:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed butterflies)
Info Created and uploaded by Jee (Jkadavoor), nominated by Hockei. -- Hockei (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! --cart-Talk 17:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I suggested I would down below on the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's always an honor and inspiration for me when one of my work is nominated by my colleagues. This make me more happy as selected after a discussion. Thanks Ikan Kekek, cart, Daniel Case and Hockei! J e e 02:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AWeith (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Жаба прудка (Rana Dalmatina).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 15:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created by Almanahe~ukwiki - uploaded by Almanahe~ukwiki - nominated by Almanahe~ukwiki -- Almanahe~ukwiki (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Almanahe~ukwiki (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, quality (ie sharpness) issues --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose depth of field problem, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per shallow DoF. Although it was nice to see the Russian word for toad in the filename ... makes me wonder as always if that's how Jabba the Hutt got his name. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe the eyeball is sharp, perhaps, but nothing else seems to be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --XRay ^talk 05:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hope Bay-2016-Trinity Peninsula–Arena Glacier 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 04:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hm. EXIF says colour space not calibrated but there's AdobeRGB embedded, which is not really suitable for web use. Maybe you can upload another version with sRGB embedded? Additionally I'm not really convinced by the sharpness. --Code (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code, "Color Space = Uncalibrated" is the expected value for AdobeRGB. The only permitted values in that field are sRGB and Uncalibrated, which should be read as "Not sRGB". The profile is what counts for those web browsers that are colour managed, and I agree that AdobeRGB isn't good for web use as some browsers (including all mobile browsers I'm aware of) are not colour managed and so do not display the colours correctly. AdobeRGB is for printing, not web. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Thank you, I didn't know that. Strange anyways as AdobeRGB isn't what I'd call "uncalibrated". --Code (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - This is a pretty spectacular scene, but the brightest areas are completely blown. Do you have any similar images that don't have such large blown areas? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not judging about image quality at this point: I would have found it very dangerous to approach the glacier front to such a small distance! Plus it seems to be an active calving front owing to the many loose chunks. Low EV I am afraid. --AWeith (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Code, Colin, Ikan Kekek, and AWeith: - There is nothing I can do to improve the sharpness (and it was shot from a moving zodiac). I can still see some texture in the smooth snow above the edge (if that's the blown area being referred to). I would have thought the EV of this image was the close proximity of people providing an immediate sense of scale (nothing to do with calving). I will see if I have any other raw files I can work up as an ALT, or withdraw and offer something different. Thanks for the comments.--Godot13 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the argument of the moving Zodiac, I do not not see any motion blur; also, I guess that at a focal length of 135mm and an exposure time of 1/320 one would not necessarily induce it. I designate this motif very attractive, though; I, therefore, recommend to adjust the white levels and the dynamic range of the image to satisfy the critiques of burnt white areas. - I am still concerned about the innocence with which the guide at the helm was approaching this obviously unstable glacier front. --AWeith (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the places where I can see texture are the very brightest areas. That said, even if not completely blown (and I maintain that, at least on my browser, some areas do indeed look that way), the brightest areas are certainly very glary. I'm sure they looked glary in person, too, but it seems to me, some details are lost, though others, as you point out, are visible. I'm still considering voting for this, due to the rest of the picture and the pure impressiveness of the view. You might consider cropping out the nearest unsharp foreground areas, though, about half the distance to the boat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the idea of this, but between the flood of comments above and the CA on the people in the raft I will hold off on a !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, AWeith, Code, and Colin: I will go back to the raw file and create a separate but nearly identical file to work on. As the original nominated is already featured on English Wikipedia I do not feel I can alter (write over) it. Thanks for everyone's input and I'll ping when the ALT is up.--Godot13 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer non cropped version. --Lošmi (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ALT Added - Per suggestions above the following have been addressed to some degree: highlights, crop, and CA. I hope this is better.--Godot13 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, AWeith, Code, and Colin: .--Godot13 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a significant improvement. I'm not fully convinced, but this is after all an impressive scene, so mild Support from me for this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wary Support per Ikan. However and ever again: can you imagine what would happen to the zodiac crew when the big and unstable chunk of at the very top comes down, releasing quite a number of icy bullets aiming at anything in the near? The weather appeared to promote such a scenario, lots of icicles indicating warm temperatures. --AWeith (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version looks ok for me (in regards to picture quality, after reading AWeith's description, I'm even more wary of ice vs sea than before). cart-Talk 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radaja Seto Festival (2016) - 040.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 02:26:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! lNeverCry 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Left crop is slightly frustrating, as it would be nice for it to be just slightly further left, but I won't withhold support because of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very happy pic, but please add some appropriate additional categories. I'm sure people who go looking for dancing girls, summer pics or folk costumes would like to find this excellent pic. cart-Talk 07:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm working on it. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, a nice pick, but overexposed and unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite grainy, not really sharp and bad crop on the left --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was still dancing and 1/320 was the slowest I could had used there. That crop was intentional and I think it works lot better for the composition (and the part that I ignored when taking that photo really wasn't worth to be on the image; an image to give some idea about surroundings). Kruusamägi (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I understand the constraints you were under and it is a testament to your photographic skill that you were able to get a usable picture of her. And while I love the colors, especially all those shades of green, and the expression on her face, the composition is off enough for me to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing overexposition Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This image has lots of positive energy, but crop on both sides and unbalanced light on the face are unfortunate. --Ivar (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose shadow/sun on face --Verde78 (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clouds swirl (7401827926).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 10:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Dave Silva - uploaded by Jasonanaggie - nominated by -- The Photographer 10:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer 10:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A fantastic capture, but that Heavy Metal light effect saturating the clouds really ruins it. Any chance of bringing it back to more normal conditions? --cart-Talk 10:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay. I underestand you and a good practice should be take it from the original picture, however, I can't contact the author and for this raison I applied a desaturation. Let me se what do you think --The Photographer 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a nice try and the best you could do (I tried it myself and ended up with something similar), but the pic is so damaged by the original processing that it leaves blown areas in the cloud. Pity. cart-Talk 14:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cart, are you saying the clouds couldn't have actually looked like this? I'm looking at this photo again and find it a pretty amazing image, if it accurately represents what the clouds looked like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I was not speaking about the shape of the clouds (that is very accurate) but the color and light on them. I have seen similar pics before (see my comment and link to those a bit further down here where I also link to such pics) as well as the thing pilots refer to as "angel flares". The "damage" I was referring to was the blown parts you get when you crank up the light and contrast too much. Doing so, you loose detail and things can't be reversed unless you have the original file. There are such blown "bands" in the clouds here. cart-Talk 04:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the bands you refer to. Thanks for calling attention to them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse me but I am totally confused. Can you please explain the occurence of the two opposingly spinning cloud vortexes? Also the lighting on the wings and elevator wings of the plane indicate a different position of the sun to me than the clouds do. -- AWeith (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cloud swirls created in the wake of a plane flying though a cloud are not that uncommon, picture-Google "cloud swirls plane" and you'll see. Pilots sometimes buzz a cloud for fun or for a photo. The sun's position looks plausible, the U.S. Coast Guard who issued this photo are usually reliable, but the colors look processed/saturated. cart-Talk 19:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the "heavy-metal light" effect duly noted by cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herbst im Sauerland.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 09:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good resolution and excellent photographic work; but it doesn't wow me at all. It's not because I find the Sauerland boring ( indeed I do); but I think the scenery is so mediocre and does not bring any message across - especially an autumn feeling - that is worth an FP to me. I acknowledge the documentary character, though. --AWeith (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The colors are very nice but the shadows ruin it for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the neutral folks. I think you might be able to get a featurable photo out of this by focusing on the body of water - especially the bend to the left - and the colorful trees alongside and near it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to oppose based on the shadows, but at full resolution the image is in such fine detail that I couldn't. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oxyopes javanus-Kadavoor-2016-06-20-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 05:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info Oxyopes javanus male. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- J e e 05:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is the male of the female recently featured. The leaf is more reflective here; so I'm not sure about the result. Let me see some opinions. ;) J e e 05:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The leaf is a bit glary at full size, but the main thing is that this is an excellent photo of the spider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent photo of the spider --WPPilot (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support creepy but excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Falbisoner: Jkadavoor and Hockei find some freaky-looking spiders. If I went on a walk with them, it would be flowers and butterflies only... lNeverCry 09:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are cute and adorable like cats. These spider's agility and speed when pouncing on its prey is often compared to the hunting methods of the Lynx. :) J e e 10:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhmm... "agility and speed when pouncing on its prey" sounds really "cute and adorable"... lNeverCry 10:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? ;) J e e 10:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. --AWeith (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that sheen on the leaf—where did that come from? Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a peculiarity of the leaf surface type. I don't know much; hope an expert can explain. J e e 03:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hockei (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palacio Hasht Behesht, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 78-80 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 10:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Ceiling in one of the rooms of Hasht Behesht, Isfahan, Iran. The palace, built in 1669, and which name means "Eight Heavens" is the only one left today out of forty mansions that existed during the rule of Safavids. All by me, Poc o² 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great to see beautiful works like this from Iran. lNeverCry 10:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular! Iranian mosques are certainly the most beautiful in the world. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This actually reminds me of the artwork by Janice Lourie. I worked on the article about her some time ago. :) cart-Talk 18:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Very nice. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gear stick (FIAT 500 Abarth).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 12:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white
Info Handheld shot. Its BW shot; to remove unwanted combination of natural and reflector light. Its more nice than color version. All by me. -- Mile (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Too dark overall. I think File:2016 Porst Reflex CX6.JPG (and File:Sony A77 II.jpg to a lesser extent, though it's pushing it) are good examples of low-key FPs, but here there are just not enough bright parts to balance out the dark background. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose also; I like the idea but that weird left crop bothers me a little. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I put second option, check again King of, Daniel Case. --Mile (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King, low-key and B&W is really difficult, low-key for reasons mentioned above and B&W ussually requires a bit more contrast than just removing the color from a pic. Sorry. cart-Talk 11:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination If FIAT would give me a car i could try. Will try somehow what i wanted to do, with better light. --Mile (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bullfight in Maracaibo Monumental Toros Square, Venezuela.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 10:19:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
Info All by -- The Photographer 10:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Joalpe (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No vote by me right now, but I just want to mention that there are currently two FPs of bullfights: 1, 2. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Three FPs, if you add this. (I hope the bull/fighter is not fake this time :-). However, similar issues to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de Toros de Maracaibo Monumental 3.jpg. Soft, oversaturated and overprocessed. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Your comment is very important for me, the bull is not a fake, however, it is the composition of two photographs in the same minute of time, using two different lenses (18-55 and 70-300 mm). I think this image is too poor quality as to be FP. That day was cloudy and it was getting dark, I could not do a better job because they are moving pictures. Thanks hacker --The Photographer 11:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temple aux six colonnes 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 22:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Nice, understated composition (or it feels that way to me) but perhaps a little dark, and the temple is not as much in focus as I'd prefer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll add that I wouldn't want you to withdraw your nomination right away because I'm mildly opposing. Let's see what other people think; INC has already voted to support the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear Ikan Kekek it is more lightened now an more sharp have look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely improved, but the temple still is less sharp than I'd prefer, so no change in my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think you've gone too far with your white balance adjustments (see history) and generally a bit overprocessed. (I recommend you use Lightrooms CA removal tool rather than try to knock out the purple and magental colours). The scene is ok for QI but not enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dear Colin (talk) I corrected the WB and i used the CA removal tool ... this is featurable beacause the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The composition does not work for me - low wow, and I think the WB is too warm. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dear Slaunger (talk) the wow come from the fact that the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene ... and made the WB more natural --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Slaunger. -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dear Zcebeci (talk) the wow come from the fact that the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene ... and made the WB more natural --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin, who saved me time by saying everything I was going to say. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dear Daniel Case (talk) I corrected the WB and i used the CA removal tool ... this is featurable beacause the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is wow for me if I believe there is; not because someone else tells me I should feel it. If you have to explain to me why I should, there isn't any wow. And even after your explanation (which you've already tried on several other editors), I don't think that's wow. And even if it is, the picture still looks to me like it was overbrightened. I can't imagine myself seeing that if I were standing there. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case I disagree strongly with "If you have to explain to me why I should, there isn't any wow." Maybe if you are some photo curator at a famous art gallery then you can refuse to be prompted wrt what makes a picture special, but IMO nominators don't do this nearly enough. Some of our candidates are obviously wow and some of them require more work to appreciate. Since we are all learning photo criticism here, including nominators, I think we should encourage nominators to explain why the image is special. But really the best time to do that is when making the nomination, not after several opposes, and it only needs to be said once. You disagree with his opinion on why it is special, but other than repeating three times, I don't think the nominator has done anything wrong and your response is a bit rude. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I would consider my response rude if I had been the only person he made this argument to. However he made it to several people, including you. Most nominators here understand that "wow" is a subjective factor, and if someone doesn't find it in a picture you just accept that and don't try to convince them they should see it. To do so anyway is like trying to argue someone should fall in love with you. If I seemed rude it was because I find this sort of attempt to buffalo not only my aesthetic judgement but others to be rude as well. Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit your rude response was a reaction to seeing posts to several other people. Perhaps IssamBarhoumi wanted a personal conversation with each of us, rather than a group. I don't know, but other than the copy/paste message being unnecessary, this reply was polite and factual and what is wrong with a nominator telling you why he loves the photo? But you rudely tell him you aren't interested in his opinion (the photographer's opinion!) and will make your own mind up thank-you-very-much. As for "buffalo", I'm not familiar with this term, but on looking it up, I suggest you are using the wrong word and over-reacting. Your description of "most nominators" is irrelevant: what does it matter what you think most nominators do or how they react. You should start with the assumption that the nominator thinks this is among our finest and when you disagree with that, you should be polite enough to let him explain why. It's really, really rude of you to tell him to be quiet and keep his opinions to himself. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: " ...what is wrong with a nominator telling you why he loves the photo?" Implying that I should love it for the same reason. I grant after reading these comments that this may be a fault of the language barrier; I would also say that I appreciate very much that Issam is being gracious about it, as gracious as native English speakers should be.

"You should start with the assumption that the nominator thinks this is among our finest" As I always do. I had tried to gently explain in my oppose !vote why it was not; citing your reasoning, which I thought was sound.

"It's really, really rude of you to tell him to be quiet and keep his opinions to himself." To read that into my response ... wow! How presumptuous! Makes me feel like I'm in some failing relationship, not a discussion among people who regard themselves as colleagues.

To explain what I feel like I am being goaded into explaining so that you can use some aspect of it against me in whatever reply you make, because I feel that such attempt would be transparently unsuccessful to third-party observers although because I respect your tenacity I know that won't stop you from trying, this whole conversation might not have occurred or even been necessary if Issam had prefaced his statement about why the picture had wow with "I think ..." or something similar. That would have made it more clearly an opinion, and I respect other people's opinions here even when don't agree with them.

Not that that means there isn't anything to apologize for on my part, so Issam, آسف. In the future I will take into account in situations like this that there are linguistic and cultural barriers we may not have been aware of. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of side comments here: First, I believe I also have been overly blunt at times with Issam, and that's partly because I misunderstood what he was saying when I thought he posted that he considered that all of his photos could be FPs (he later explained that's not what he meant to say). English is probably at least his third language. Second, there are cultural differences between Issam and most of the rest of us. I find that he is very polite and somewhat formal. Of course he can speak for himself, but my feeling is that I've never seen him do or say anything that seemed heedlessly or intentionally rude to me, and I definitely don't think he has ever intended to be anything but friendly, positive and constructive. Sometimes it's easy to forget how much scope there is on an international site like this for intercultural misunderstanding, and also for intercultural enlightenment. I'm not sure either "side" in this discussion is really at fault, ultimately, as I think two good people simply had a misunderstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dear Colin so kind from you <3 but really I do not consider all critics of friends here as rude ... I want really to learn so I consider them all piece of advices <3 so dear Daniel Case (talk) and Ikan Kekek (talk) next time I will mention the FP reason in the description as I did in this one and I will only answer why I featured it if asked, I am sorry to everybody here for the bothering I may cause somtimes without intending that --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second what Colin said above: It's great and really helpful when photographers explain why they consider a photo featurable. So if it were up to me, I would definitely want you to let us know how you're thinking about a photograph. As for the rest, no worries on my account! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is nice when photographers explain what's featurable about an image—some technical detail or historical fact. However, saying what in effect amounts to "this wows me, so it should wow you" is counterproductive to serious discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel if "this wows me, so it should wow you" causes you to get so upset then perhaps keep those feelings to yourself. IssamBarhoumi didn't actually mention "wow". He said "this is featurable because ..." which, is standard on en:wp and I would be happy to see on Commons. I see no language barriers here, only attitude problems. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)@Colin: Please reread the discussion above in toto, not with an eye toward finding nits to damn me with. Slaunger said it had "low wow", to which Issam made the same copypasted response. I had simply seconded your response, and since Issam's response took in Slaunger's as well as yours and mine, I adopted the language of his critique since I felt "low wow" summed it up most succinctly from an aethetic perspective (whereas you had pointed to some technical issues). Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I'm not talking about your original review, but your response to IssamBarhoumi. I'm not "finding nits". Your comments "There is wow for me if I believe there is; not because someone else tells me I should feel it. If you have to explain to me why I should, there isn't any wow." is patronising, arrogant, rude and unacceptable and I never want to see ~~you~~ anyone talk to a nominator like that again. -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I do not agree with you that Daniel's comment is "patronising, arrogant, rude and unacceptable". This is just a too extreme. Your follow-up comment "and I never want to see you talk to a nominator" is on the contrary patronizing. I think I would say Daniels response could have been friendlier, but I also found it weird the way a lot of almost similar responses were duplicated. It appears that IssamBarhoumi has not taken offense by it either, but has acknowledged the feedback and proposals. I do not think it is worth spending more time on this to be honest. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger I have replaced "you" with "anyone", if that helps make it less "patronising", because I stand by that statement. I find that sentence offensive and unacceptable. I did not wish to make a big fuss (see initial mild comment), but the further comments by Daniel confirm the problem. And the suggestion that the nominator needs to signpost their opinions with "I think" or similar, is simply too much: most reviewers, including Daniel, confidently and authoratively state their support/oppose reasons (blown sky, too noisy, bad cut, CA, great composition, wonderful sky, etc) without such signposting. Let us all agree that nominator's/creator's opinions about what they think is special or gives wow or makes it featurable are precious, should be given freely and more often, and should not be rudely dismissed as we saw here. -- Colin (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you again ... let peace flow on the community ... I learned lot and I will not cause that again ... let us see something else may be it could win ;) --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arc monumental.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 13:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is really nice! You have certainly improved your photos since you started out here. :) You don't happen to have a version with a little extra space over the arc? The top crop is kind of close to it. cart-Talk 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment dear cart-Talk I make it wider on the top --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Composition-wise it improved the pic, but unfortunately it also increased that overexposed area Christian is talking about. Had the additional area been more normal, it would have been a different thing to consider. Sorry, but overall this will be an Oppose from me. cart-Talk 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky have been overexposed, this is not fixable Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment dear Christian Ferrer ^(talk) yes this is true because the sky is there and without that we can not have this colour inside the arch --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok i will take care with light next time thank you Christian Ferrer ^(talk) and thank you cart-Talk --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago September 2016-4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 13:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Trump International Hotel &Tower behind the Wrigley building Tower. Chicago, USA. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geocode, please. --Code (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In my opinion, if there is going to be any perspective distortion, it must be very clear and striking (e.g. File:TransAmerica Pyramid.jpg), not "sort-of distorted" as it is here. I also disagree with the placement of the Tribune Tower in front of the Trump Tower, which makes the composition look flat. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I totally get the old vs new tower idea here. Such comparative photos are often tricky to execute, side by side is often better than superimposing. I think this would have worked better if the central lines of the towers, represented by their spires, had been aligned instead of the bulk of the buildings. A small difference in light could also have helped separate the towers from each other, like a darker new Trump Tower looming over the old traditional. And going for vertical lines, it is generally better to go all in and include all verticals in the pic, here the (also vertical) flag pole is unfortunately cropped leaving the flag to its own devices. cart-Talk 18:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Alvesgaspar, would you consider straightening the buildings? I agree that it would have been nice for at least the whole flag to be visible, but I really like the old/new idea cart mentions, and I will support if the buildings are straightened. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have given a try but it doesn't work. The camera was too close! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I hope you have a chance to give this composition another shot, because I really like it. But as it is, I am Neutral because of the slant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per cart. It just seems off to me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like because you didnt go to "correct distortion" and you left it as it, which is in this case good. I would more like third-third-third compo (church-skycraper-air). And also agree with flag. Think people should know when to correct it and when not. King of mentioned good case where that is more clear, true, but in this kind of shot he cant go so close, since he have to capture one more building behind. --Mile (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prague September 2016-2a.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 13:52:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Panoramicc view of Prague from the Jiráskuk bridge, to north. Notice the castle, with St. Vitus Cathedral. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geocode, please. --Code (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support lNeverCry 20:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please fix the dust spots in the sky. Thanks, Alvesgaspar. It's very good to see you nominating photos here again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done And thanks for the welcome! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support since I presume you will fix that spot Ikan mentions. cart-Talk 20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support May be WB could be a little bit warmer. --XRay ^talk 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FDR Four Freedoms Park New York October 2016 panorama.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 00:46:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural (not actually natural, but I don't know where else to put this)
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very nice photo, but when I really consider whether it's among the absolutely most outstanding, I have to admit it falls short. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, sorry. Nice but not nice enough for FP. --Code (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "Places/Natural" (but this is your problem and a wikimedia problem IMO). Good quality, but not FP IMO. Nothing special IMO, sorry--Lmbuga (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~It needs perspective correction. See right and left vertical lines (see notes)~~ --Lmbuga (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lmbuga: Note that the buildings are straight, and the barrier is actually slightly curved; I would trust the buildings more than the verticals on the barrier. Unfortunately, FP classifies places as either "Architecture" or "Natural," and this sure isn't architecture! I was so desperate for a place to put this man-made landscape that I put down "Bridges" even though the bridge only occupies a fraction of the image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: Buildings are too little. Perhaps you are right, but in my opinion the reference is other and bigger (see notes). Thanks and sorry--Lmbuga (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're right: I'm sorry; but not FP IMO: Nothing special: Interesting?--Lmbuga (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bowsprit of the Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951) cf01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 09:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All by -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, I have to agree with Daniel. The line with the cables to the bowsprit that continue in the boom of the sailboat is really nice, but it gets lost in the buildings behind it. There are also the flags that are very difficult to see where they belong, boat, other boat, building? Sorry. --cart-Talk 21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. An interesting idea that is good but not completely successful in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral II.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 12:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Others
Info created and uploaded by Jose Humberto Matias de Paula - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow, a great image! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better than the previous FPC from this cave. I love her Super Hero pose! :) What is that dark blue strange spot (see note)? Is it just shadows playing a trick on us or something else? --cart-Talk 15:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure, maybe a shadow caused by the backlight. --Ivar (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the detail in this light. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine detail. The color saturation is not too much to my taste, but it is not exactly disturbing. --AWeith (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm willing to excuse the technical deficiencies (the slightly out-of-focus stalactites and only 5.4 MP resolution) due to the huge wow factor. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressing!--Ermell (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At this point, there isn't much incentive for anyone to pay any attention to my suggestion, but for what it's worth, I would cut some of the unsharp foreground from the top. I think that would improve the photo, but seeing as this is going to be a Featured Picture as is, I don't think anyone will do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The underwater surface structures of an iceberg in Svalbard.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 05:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created & uploaded by User:AWeith - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - AWeith's description: "When icebergs capsize and display the parts previously residing under water, they very often display a wafer like surface." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 05:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 05:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support "I am in to texture!" Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Godot13 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cerkev sv. Marka, Vrba.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 14:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Smihael -- Miha (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is in a rare late-autumn light. I also have a version without powerlines (from a slightly different perspective), but I thought maybe they are interesting part of the composition -- Miha (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, I guess they are not. I feel disturbed by them. Moreover, the scenery dosen't wow me. --AWeith (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I will upload a different version. Probably it still won't have the wow effect for you as it is nothing you wouldn't have seen before , as both arhitecture and landscape of Baden-Württemberg are quite similar to Gorenjska/Krain, where the picture was taken, but it might be different for someone, coming from Mediterrans. --Miha (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark areas are too dark = too much contrast. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel a tighter crop on the church would work (it feels like it's getting lost amid all the scenery) but it's probably better to try again, as it seems rather soft on the church. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jaz bi uporabil rano jutranjo uro za tole, zlate sončne tukaj ne pašejo. Rano, ko sonca še ni, ko je še rosa povsod, tisto bi bil kandidat. Takrat sonca niti ne rabiš oziroma bi celo motil posnetek. Cerkev daš na tretjino, in po višini, in po širini. Sredinske kompozicije se neposrečene. --Mile (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I actually like this composition a lot, and apparently more than anyone else who's voted on this nomination. The shadows really work to me as shapes. To me, this is a very good landscape composition, with the layers of the shadows, the lighted grass, the church and colorful trees, the mountains and the sky. The focus is a little soft on the upper reaches of the church, but I don't see this as a photo of a church but as a landscape including a church, and I don't think I agree with suggestions of a crop. The only real question in my mind is whether this photo is outstanding compared to all similar photos, and since I don't have the time to look through every potentially similar photo, I simply give this photo a mild support vote for its own artistic quality, as I see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MOB GDe 4-4 6004 Gstaad - Gruben with Golden Pass Classic.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 13:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We had perfect weather yesterday - the photo I like best is this MOB GoldenPass Classic train from Montreux to Zweisimmen as it climbs the grade between Gstaad and Gruben, Switzerland.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 21:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very Swiss landscape that doesn't need snow-capped Alps to make its point. Daniel Case (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per Daniel Case, --WPPilot (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. --Code (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Skul of crocodile (Crocodylidae).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Specimen of crocodile skull prepared by the bone maceration technique and on display at the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy, FMVZ USP, created by Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP / Wagner Souza e Silva - uploaded by Lucas.Belo - nominated by Joalpe -- Joalpe (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joalpe (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well lit, excellent details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --WPPilot (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support Almost a little too bright in some areas, though. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wasserfall-Saarburg-Amueseum-2016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 20:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----WPPilot (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, compo most. --Mile (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 08:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the way that waterfall just drastically opens up the space in the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Water lily on a lake.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 16:17:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Nymphaeales
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Bharel -- Bharel (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bharel (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty picture, but it needs much better categories such as what species of Nymphaeaceae and where the photo is taken, that should also be in the description. This should have been sorted out at QIC, but unfortunately too many reviewers miss that. A geocode would also be nice, please. --cart-Talk 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy for me, and the blurred background doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Daniel. The flower is very nice, though. Assuming the issues cart discussed above are taken care of, a tight rectangular crop just beyond the flower and to its right would be a photo that I could probably support, with the point being to get rid of most of the blur and most of the leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 08:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago September 2016-14.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 21:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Clearly, sometimes you only have to wish for something and it will appear. This is sort of what I was looking for in the previous nom. Created and uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 21:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 21:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nomination, W.carter. I was not sure myself owing to the strong distortion. But I agree the view is striking! Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice mood. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Challenging photo to take, and I think the results are good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Having some shadow is probably unavoidable at any time of day. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question No complains because of the dust spots and the noisy sky?--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the dust spots, those few are now corrected, thanks for pointing them out. I hope Alvesgaspar don't mind. Unfortunately I wrote "left" in the Comments when it was "right". Is that correctable, or do I live with the shame of having mixed up left and right? As for the sky, I don't find it too noisy. It's a large file and denoising with such thin clouds can have strange effects. I think it is up to Alvesgaspar to make that decision. cart-Talk 09:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I make that mistake all the time - I'm one of those guys that often still has to feel my hands to remember which side is which, and that's not even fail-safe. And I do correct such mistakes in my comments when I catch them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good picture --Ermell (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this works! Icy in its beauty and juxtaposition of old and new. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For sure an impressive motive and challenging shot. Nonetheless I would suggest some optimizations:

Slight CAs at the top right building (CA note), I would definitely denoise the sky, the foreground is too tightly cropped for my personal taste, have you got more space left there? Judging from the EXIFs of the photo is is a stitching, probably you can add information about the stitching with {{Photo}} and/or {{Panorma}} template. I have no problem with the distortion - inevitably for such an extreme view, but I am wondering why the top of the building is relatively unsharp although you've used stitching technique. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 'pinging' Alvesgaspar on your behalf. Such decisions and answers needs to be from the photographer and not the nominator in this case. cart-Talk 18:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,W.carter. My questions / suggestions were indeed directed to the photographer. Because Alvesgaspar already reacted to your nomination I was sure he has this page on the watchlist :) --Tuxyso (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Dublin Stephen's Green-44.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 00:26:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Ireland
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dronepicr -- dronepicr (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dronepicr (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great idea; unfortunately drones have not yet been outfitted to carry DSLRs (I have seen one attempt to do so; there are others) and the shortcomings of the DJI-issue camera show here ... very soft on the trees. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT the case Daniel, (no pun intended) many drones now carry DSLR's. Fact is this shot was done with a Phantom, those have small chips (same size as a go pro) yet the Inspire 1 Drone I fly for Television Production runs a fantastic Micro 4/3rds camera that DJI refers to as a X5 and its Large Platform Drone, carries DSLR cameras. The dif is cost, you can Phantom for under a thousand yet my production Inspire Pro rig is well over 10k, it goes up only when I am getting paid :). Is that going to be the standard of entry for Aerial Photos on commons "if you don't have the 10k to play, go away" seems a bit over the top to me..... --WPPilot (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, there are certain quality issues... but: this is one of the best pictures taken using a drone that I've seen so far. So don't pixelpeep, simply enjoy the view! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin. Very cool and interesting. Think of this as the drone equivalent of a 2000 FP taken with a Nikon D1X (I know Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek remember that 5 megapixel, 5,000$ dinosaur... ). lNeverCry 08:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks quite sharp to me and is 12MP. If downsized to 6MP it is fully sharp except right in the corners, and 6MP is fine for printing in a magazine spread, for example. The colourful green is well framed by the buildings and this is has very high EV. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it is. Great idea and maybe we have to set another standard for drone photos, but normal post-processing can still be applied to these photos, such as denoising and removing CA. There is red/green CA or purple fringes on almost every white area along the edges. cart-Talk 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberration --The Photographer 11:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Widely in our finest. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We can accept lower technical quality for drone photography just as we already do for underwater photography. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, we could choose to do so, but why? Aerial photography from helicopters already exists as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it will not be long until drones can carry DSLR cameras and/or same will be designed to be usable on drones. We can wait ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the uploader had given us the 6MP version and told you it was taken by a DSLR, nobody would be surprised. At 6MP the CA at the top and left edge is minor. Compare this current FPC candidate which is a soft 6MP image taken with a 36MP D800, and doing well at FPC -- because we punish those who upload full sized image and fall for those who downsize to 40% to escape pixel criticism! Wrt aerial photography, I'd be interested in User:WPPilot's professional views. Compare this failed nomination. Having a DSLR is absolutely no guarantee against the critics and pixel peeping at FPC :-) You need luck with the light, weather, foliage/season, stability and careful framing of a subject like this. Can anyone point to a better aerial photo of a city garden square, anywhere, never mind just on Commons? My guess is this sort of imagery is technically challenging, with a low success rate, and that none of us reviewers really know from personal experience what quality to expect. Most images I found online were thumbnails, whereas this is 12MP -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the pic per se, but I expect the same basic CA removal and noise reduction when possible as we do of any FPC. If these very fixable issues are fixed, I will happily change my vote to 'Support'. Hence the "as it is". cart-Talk 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronepicr its seems very unsharp, like lens was dirty or something. Actually this image quality isnt so high even for drone, but compo and idea is good. I am sure its more Valuable photo. --Mile (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have many drone photos (tell me if I'm wrong), and this is one of the greatest drone photos I've seen. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)--Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WPPilot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with Pokéfan95, as the single largest contributor of aerial photos to this site, I think this is a wonderful and well framed shot. Many of you are IMHO being too critical... What is the barrier to entry here? According to ECIF on this shot it was done with the DJI FC300X, (Phantom 3 pro) that is a 1500 dollar investment when you fly (I have one myself) and one would think that this SHOULD be able to establish a aerial photo FP, using the DJI Phantom pro as its chipset is the same size as a "Go Pro" and we have a number of FP's that were created using the Go Pro camera... Another thing to consider BTW is the cost of Insurance too. A phantom is about 600 a year, while a pro level drone running a DSLR is about 3500, a year and that is my rate as a 30 year multi engine licensed pilot with no accident history......[reply]

Comment - The test here is whether a candidate photo is one of the very best on the site. That calls for having very high standards, or if you like, being very critical. And I don't see what the cost of insurance has to do with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt is about "Cost of Entry" originally the FP designation was designed to allow people with a simple Cel Phone to be able to take a have a photo that was worthy of FP, it would seem that is no longer the case. It was mentioned above that Aerial Drone "do not" fly DSLR's. Almost ALL of my aerial photos were done from my planes, while flying them @ 100 to 300mph give or take. The critical assessments you previously offered was that we can do better, my retort is who is going to pay? I have suggested a Drone "Group" to help this process move along but, just as Colin said above this is a wonderful photo and we are going to have to give some leeway, or simply exclude drone photos unless the photographer has the 10 to 20 thousand dollars required to meet your overly high standards such as my production rig that ONLY flies, when I am being paid to fly it as the risk of loss it too great that is why I have the other drones.. Do you have a example of a GOOD aerial photo that YOU have taken so the rest of us can see what it is you think is FP quality, and please do tell what the system was that you used to take it with. A DJI Phantom line should be able to do this, its chipset is the same on on Go Pro's, my concern is that we "price" just about every contributor out of this field due to the quality standards that you are implying. Featured Picture is about more then just the technical quality, educational value as well as difficulty should be considered and weighed in upon before a conclusion is made simply based upon a technical imperfection. Thanks.....--WPPilot (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't submit my own photos to FPC because they're nowhere remotely close to featurable. If anyone would like to argue that means I should refrain from participating here, I'd have no problem with having that argument somewhere else, such as on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates, where we could discuss revisions in the qualifications of FPC voters and anything else related to that. We have featured a couple of cellphone pics. Those were cases in which enough of us considered the composition to be great enough and the quality good enough, despite inevitable limitations. But I think I remember from previous discussions that cellphone pics generally, as of yet, aren't considered by a consensus at FPC to be of good enough quality to be featured, and I believe the couple that passed were regarded by all "support" voters as exceptions that prove the rule (whereas the opposers still didn't consider the photos technically good enough). I definitely agree with you that technical quality is not the only consideration at FPC. Composition is a very strong consideration, and educational/encyclopedic/historical (etc.) value also can figure in voting decisions. It's understandable that different people rate these criteria as more or less important, in context. The upshot in this particular case is that I definitely understand your point of view and respect it, but while I don't exclude supporting drone pics at all and would look forward to doing so, I don't feel the novelty of the technology overrides my desire for more focus. If the result of attitudes like mine is that drone pictures currently can't be featured, I agree that that's regrettable, and I would be willing to allow some leeway in quality, but not this much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --S I 16:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not FP quality. It might take some time until drone photography reaches an acceptable standard. I agree relating the educational value.--Ermell (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Info @Dronepicr, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, and INeverCry: @Colin, W.carter, The Photographer, Christian Ferrer, and Iifar: @PetarM, Pokéfan95, Uoaei1, Alchemist-hp, and WPPilot: @Schmarrnintelligenz, Lošmi, Frank Schulenburg, and Ermell: I made an effort to correct the CA and add just a hair more sharpening. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It isn't even that unsharp, in my opinion. We have one standard for easily photographed subjects like skylines, buildings with lots of breathing room, and landscape panoramas, and a lower standard which is merely "normal" here at FPC and encompasses everything from birds to regular buildings to difficult landscapes, and finally a case-by-case standard for historical images and low-light action. I think the sharpness of this image compares favorably with some of the lower-quality images that have been promoted in the second category. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both are great, anyway. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support better ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - I appreciate your work here, but this photo is still not sharp enough for me. Of the arguments you're making, the only one that's somewhat persuasive to me is the one about historical photos. The way the analogy could be made is that 100 years ago, it wasn't possible to get the degree of clarity and detail that can be attained with very good digital equipment today, and similarly, the argument would go, it's not now possible to get really crisp digital images from a drone (or at least not possible without spending tens of thousands of dollars). However, in the case of historical photography, there was no alternative at the time for any photography, whereas now, drone photography is only one particular type of photography. This is a very good composition, but are we voting on this (a) as a photograph or (b) as a representative of drone photography? Or are we voting on this (c) as a photograph and giving a big handicap to our judging because it's a drone photograph, but without considering this specifically as an exemplar of drone photography (in the nature of a Valued Image nomination)? I'm not clear on that, but I think I've laid out three different possible standards. And I think my standard would be to vote on this as a photograph and give somewhat of a handicap to it - but not a huge one - because it's a drone photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I could list the many less sharp and smaller resolution photos you have happily supported. Take this one where many others noticed her face was completely unsharp and the nominator explains the difficulty in capturing a moving dancer. Or this one where (i assume very strong NR) has created a smooth image but with no sharpness on the ice -- who cares. One doesn't have to go to the extreme of historical photos to justify unsharp images at 100%. Plenty situations compromise photography: having to use high ISO greatly reduces sharpness, moving subjects, moving cameras (think aeroplane), atmospheric conditions. Extreme wide-angle lenses and projections will have soft corners and that's just the laws of optics. We are spoiled by the sharpness of some of our downsized megapixel stitched churches or from images produced by $3000 cameras with $1000 prime lenses on them. We are also familiar with TV and web images of landscapes and sports that are actually tiny 2MP or thumbnail images and we forget that they probably look crap at 12MP never mind 36MP. Most of the images posted on popular photography sites barely fill an HD monitor (so < 2MP) yet we look at them and think they are wonderfully sharp. The standard at FP isn't that demanding and hasn't been in general. Unlike QI, FP balances wow with technical perfection. We are supposed to rise above the pixel peeping when presented with a great image. This image currently represents state-of-the-art low-height aerial photography -- I cannot find a better or sharper one anywhere. We've never judged FP by what might come in future. Unlike our churches and plants and bugs, we don't have lots of photographers doing this, and if we expect the sharpness of a Diliff interior then we won't have any such photographers participating here because they'll laugh. We are voting on whether this is among our finest images. Look at the image, not the pixels. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, no one objected to the sharpness when I nominated this photo for FP, the critique was all about the artistic side. The houses and cars around the church are of about the same quality as this photo. I think the distance may be about the same as well. cart-Talk 11:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you make good points. I'm liking but not loving this photo, but I'll abstain, at least for now, and think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, you'll need to strike "Phantom 3 Drone" from your letter to Santa this year :-(. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, Rats... But I guess this will be the same as with fireworks here, you have to apply for a permit (and pay for it) for those by law but everyone ignores that and fire them anyway. No-one is ever fined or convicted since the police gave up on that long ago. cart-Talk 12:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drone become weapon, true weapon. Saw it in action. Lets say if this drone would lost control, at this high this would kill anyone bellow. Here you need permit also. See drone accidents on youtube. We wont see long this kind of shots. --Mile (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Either one is fine with me, but this is an improvement. lNeverCry 09:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per INC --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks King of Hearts for taking the time to fix this up. There is still some CA left, but this is acceptable. The quality is about the same as you get in horizontal pics, made by a reasonably priced camera, at this distance. cart-Talk 11:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support CA is almost gone, and yes We can't apply the same standard for all the cameras. Could be nice apply a different standard based on Camera model. --The Photographer 12:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support i created a new version, reduced noise and modify sharpness: File:Dublin aerial unedited new version.jpg -- dronepicr (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- dronepicr, I compared your new version with the other two. The colour temperature is slighly different (5,211 vs 5,628) and you have increased the noise reduction and applied a mask to the sharpening. The CA is eliminated (whereas the alt by King of Hearts is only reduced). The noise, particularly on the lake and roads is eliminated, though possibly you didn't need to apply quite as much, in order to retain as much detail as possible. You could try using the brush and some negative noise reduction on the trees and grass to exclude them from the NR and restore some (apparent) detail there. The differences (apart from colour temp) are only visible at 100% and it looks like this alt will pass, so I'm not sure it is worth fiddling more with the image and creating another alt nomination. I think your edit does demonstrate why it is best to fix issues with the raw/source file and by the image creator in preference -- the CA is better removed and adding a sharpening mask is something you can only do on the unsharpened original, not on the already sharpened JPG. -- Colin (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hesitate to support a photo of such reduced quality merely by the fact that the camera position is so unusual. My apology to the photographer; however, the only thing that impresses me here is the stunning scenario. I see lots of CA around the white structures, the treetops are partly blurred and the figures on the pavements (maybe not only them) are unsharp or blurred. I admit its fun to walk the streets around this park but at least I get dizzy from the unsharpness. Sorry again. --AWeith (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, the unsharpness of the trees is what bugs me most about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mile (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Colin I edited noise and sharpness in the original raw file, NOT in jpeg. I Think it is slightly better than before. I'm wondering why there is so much negative feedback for this photo. The photo was taken with a small drone sensor, not with a dslr. In my opinion, a good photos is not always a perfect sharpened one. -- dronepicr (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dronepicr I know you edited the raw in this copy but that one hasn't been proposed as an alt (and I think it is too late now to do so -- perhaps another nom if you feel strongly your edit is better). So it is confusing when you talk of "it is slighty better" or "this photo" as I'm not clear which of the three copies you refer to. I think your new version has too much NR -- just like one can over-sharpen one can also over-NR and we don't need to see smooth-as-plastic roads or water. There is of course a bigger debate on how much a 12+MP image needs to be sharpened given that its main use on WP is as a thumbnail (which is sharpened after downsizing automatically by MediaWiki) or could be sharpened by another re-user at the dimentions they wish to use. But most people do aim for a pleasing image on-screen at 12MP. Once everyone has high-DPI displays, some of this pixel-peeping will simply vanish. I think some of the negative comments about being "unsharp" aren't referring to post-processing sharpness, but in the clarity of detail captured by the lens/sensor. We would all love more detail, but I understand the limitations of the technology. As WPPilot explained, expecting a DSLR drone standard at FP is so fantastically expensive and risky to buy/insure/licence that it would be like expecting Hassleblad or cinema-grade photographic equipment as the base standard for FP. It's not going to happen. -- Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Dublin Stephen's Green-44 edit.jpg

File:2009K4393 - Почаїв (Тернопільський).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 08:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is pretty harsh and the perspective looks like the cathedral's leaning backward a bit. lNeverCry 08:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose essentially per INC, though the slant is a bigger issue for me than the light. But what a beautiful motif! Please try taking more photos of it in softer light from different positions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per INC; minimal (to put it mildly) .EXIF data is also a concern. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 34-36 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 07:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An unusual mosque photo and particularly beautiful at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though it is so very nearly 16:9 that I'd recommend a crop to that. -- Colin (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will take care of that tonight, Colin Poc o² 10:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It took me longer, but Done now, Colin Poc o² 21:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 08:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool pic :) Thank you Ikan for this nom!! Poc o² 10:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for taking it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Photographer 11:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another lovely abstract Iranian ceiling (Not sure from the window above if it's tilted or it's the window, though ... seems to be the latter). Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question The sky is gray or brightness was artificially lowered? --The Photographer 10:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Photographer, that grey due was due to a too strong highlights reduction, I have moderated it. --Poc o² 20:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, I will keep my suppor vote --The Photographer 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Got some questions on pic, see notes. Also think is very gray inside, and maybe right side could be enlightened a bit more if RAW is available. --Mile (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A windows. I think is much better then before. --Mile (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: What does RAW stand for? never heard of that. :) Those openings are not showing directly the sky, I think that there was a kind of cover. I have brightened the right dome and reduce the highlight compensation --Poc o² 20:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This improved the picture, but did it really look like this, or did it look more like what you had before? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I applied the change because I believe that it does look now more realistic than before, otherwise I wouldn't have applied it. In general this kind of changes should not be applied to make it look nicer but closer to reality. Poc o² 07:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reassurance. I totally agree with that, but I think you can understand why I asked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Claus 08:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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