Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2019

File:MG-002-0038 Antiguo Congreso NacionalBW 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 23:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by AnonymousUnknown author - uploaded by Mauricio V. Genta - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another version without desaturate the color saturation Ezarateesteban 23:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositionally average, and the sides are also dirty. Perhaps a VI to show what the building formerly looked like, but not an FP for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts, it's a very useful image but for me just not interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the King--Booth sift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Doesn't seem to have enough historic value to overcome the lack of wow. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 03:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poster for Jules Massenet's La Navarraise with Emma Calvé in the rôle of Anita.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 14:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Posters and advertisement
Info created by Reutlinger family - restored. uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)I[reply]
Comment This doesn't fit cleanly in any category. Suggestions? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it in /Non-photographic media#Posters and advertisement. There are already other posters that include photos or drawings based on photos in that cat. It's best to think: "Hmmm, now where would I find posters for entertainment?" When you start to fix up old movie posters, we'll just make a new category for that. :-) --Cart (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: You were saying? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, that doesn't count since it is pure drawing. --Cart (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 23:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to me like your nominations have better and better resolution :) --Podzemnik (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Podzemnik: I can't promise that'll be a permanent trebd - lots of non-posters to do as well - but I have a pretty good stash of high-res ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Sorry, but it doesn't wow me. Otherwise, I would support it--Boothsift 00:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boothsift: That 's fair. As I said on en-wiki, I think a big part of this image's wow - that a photograph could be enlarged this much, which wouldn't really be a regular thing until the 1920s - is permanently lost. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Val de Funes cun la Odles d'auton Südtirol.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 19:24:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created & uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contrail really has to be carefully edited out. Such trails are temporary so I don't think there are any ethical issues with removing them, and more than removing dust spots. This one is too distracting. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a fan of reality as it is. These includes (in the opposite to dust spots produced by the camera) people on squares, sheep on meadows, and here the crane above the house (also temporary) and the contrails in the sky. --Stepro (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moroder: Your statement "Feel free to use my photos, but please mention me as the author and send me a message." contradicts in the last part, in my opinion, the CC license. In addition, you require the version 3.0-de above, and below the version 4.0 of the license. You have to decide please. --Stepro (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Stepro, "mention me as author" is of course required by the licence. I take the "but please.... send me a message" to be a request rather than a requirement, so it doesn't contradict the licence. Another example, you may release your work under CC0, which waives all rights, and still request attribution and a notification. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors, would be better a little wider but nonetheless great shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe per Colin. Du machst Dich um das Ladinische wirklich verdient, Wolfgang ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks surreal. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Matthias Süßen (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Sorry, but the license must be clear. In the author field it is 3.0-de, in the box below "license-header" it is 4.0. I will change my vote to support as soon as it is fixed. --Stepro (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Stepro: I'm not very familiar with licenses but I don't see any License 3.0-de in the author field. Couldn't I simply fix it deleting the "license-header"? Regards --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just found out, it's only in German language, but not in English. I will write you on your Talk page, here OK for me. --Stepro (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 14:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's a little bit too bright, but still a great quality photo. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Not as sharp throughout as one would expect given the size, but just too stunning an image for that to be anywhere near enough to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and about the contrail: The part of the mountain that was clearcut is much more disfiguring, but it's real, and if that is being shown, I don't see a good reason to delete the contrail. That said, there are some dust spots that should be removed because they are not part of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ivan Shishkin - Рожь - Google Art Project.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 05:39:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Ivan Shishkin - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 05:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine (✉) 05:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only 9MP means we lack detail compared to many of our FP paintings and in particular we are usually spoiled by Google Art Project paintings many many times more detailed than this -- this is like a thumbnail in comparison. The crop in the top left is poor and the image has significant vignetting in the corners, either due to the lens or bad lighting. I don't see what is "among our finest" about this photographic rendering of a painting. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care so much about the resolution, but all the other points made by Colin I entirely agree. --Stepro (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the artwork very much, but Colin makes some good points. Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, Pine, the painting is really great but I'd expect better quality. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not FP level--Booth sift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't realize it was a painting until I read these !votes, and per Colin I probably should have. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pine (✉) 02:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eisvogel kingfisher.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 05:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Frank-2.0 uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Perfect composition, and great combination of colors with the yellow lichen: a natural example of the 3 primary colors. Yann (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for killing the mood, but having seen my fair share of kingfishers in the wild there is significantly too much saturation in the picture. This orange cannot be explained with perfect light conditions. Otherwise a great shot, with perfect posture and beautiful detail :-( C-M (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@C-M: The species is orange though, just adding that--Booth sift 18:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: Yes they are, over the years I have probably seen around 50 in the wild. If you have a look around you will find many excellent natural pictures here which are not that orange and more brownish. Feel free to compare with drawn field guides as these tend to have a fairly realistic color rendition, I have the Collins bird guide here on my desk as an additional reference («... underparts and cheek patch warm orangey brownish-red ...»). C-M (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a more realistic version with the saturation reduced by 30% - not sure whether I did the licensing correctly, I had to remove the flickr reviewer part of the description for the upload to pass, so feel free to fix potential problems there. C-M (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@C-M: You can upload a new version of the original file instead. As the bot is glitchy, I have removed the picture. --Booth sift 04:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally did not want to change the original as that would interfere with the candidacy. We could nominate the desaturated version as an alternate, but we should in that case probably notify everyone who left already a vote. C-M (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 05:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per C-M. – Lucas 06:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per C-M --Stepro (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote--Booth sift 20:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, first c&p mistake and than blind on both eyes. I fixed my vote. --Stepro (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 06:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Castle in Narok (Norok), Silesia.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 12:14:58 (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) 12:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree obstructs the building. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. And it's not just one tree. I find the placement of the trees annoying, and it's a nice stylized castle, so I want a clear look at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann--Booth sift 17:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like it, I think the building is visible enough, the colours are lovely and the angle seems ok. Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 05:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hereford Cathedral Lady Chapel, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 15:33:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The lady chapel at Hereford Cathedral, Herefordshire, England. This early English chapel is one of the largest of its kind in any English cathedral, and is especially renowned for the five lancet windows at the east end, clearly visible in this image. Note that this is the fourth and final member of a set of images of the cathedral nominated on English Wikipedia, the other three images already being featured on Commons. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's hard not to like it. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support how beautiful! --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 13:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Splendid! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kelp gull portrait, New Brighton, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 20:48:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's a portrait of Kelp gull. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~Underexposed, reflexions, posterization in background, cut composition and lack of space, border shadow~~ --Wilfredor (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: I tried a different crop. Posterization was caused by me playing with the temperature too much so I've restored the original version. I'm not sure what you mean by reflections. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posterization is gone, cut is better and underexposition IMHO is fixed, I love the natural colors --Wilfredor (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's better now. Thank you for your vote, your opinion is appreciated! --Podzemnik (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Until another look later--Booth sift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 13:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no issues here, as good as your previous bird portrait. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vietnam War protestors at the March on the Pentagon.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 19:44:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1960-1970
Info created by The Lyndon B. Johnson Library - uploaded by The Obento Musubi - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 19:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 19:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fluffy89502 – It's grainy, could you please fix it first ? Oppose until this is fixed, I'll support if this issue is closed -- Eatcha (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha, yes it is grainy. That is because it is taken with Photographic film and all such old photos look sort of like that. The Film grain is one of the properties of such images, I guess you are to young to know about things like this. :-) Anyway, the grain should not be "fixed". --Cart (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not very evocative for me as very few faces are shown.--Peulle (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grain is acceptable given the era. I find the image an interesting piece of historical documentation that deserves a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 it's really an important issue per List of the lengths of United States participation in wars (17.4 years) -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a particularly interesting shot, not a particularly important moment by itself (if needed prob Nov 15, '69 should be singled out). -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle --Booth sift 21:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree others Seven Pandas (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is pretty much what you can expect from this kind of shot. Being a documentary photograph of a public event, it was probably taken on regular 135 film. So it will have more pronounced grain than the studio portraits taken on medium or large format film that we usually get to see here. That being said, I'll have to agree with Peulle as well. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 05:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even in the 60s (and earlier) it was possible to take sharp pictures without any grain. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Not a picture that evokes the era well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Isthmus Peak Trail to Lake Hawea, New Zealand 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 20:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Snow
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's a view to Lake Hawea. What is interesting about this photo is that you can see that it's snowing there. The day was fairly warm so the snow didn't make it all the way down to the lake but it made it to the mountain tops. I'm standing around the snow line so you can see that on the left ridge the snow is presented but just a little bit down the ridge the snow doesn't reach the ground and melts before it has a chance to touch the surface. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but please consider my suggested crop --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to be honest. I quite like the left part because it's the only part with snow on the ground. The photo is nominated for category Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Snow - if it was for the Nature category or the main object would be the lake, I'd be keen. Also, quite a few people have already voted for this version. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 13:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just looking makes me remember the feeling of slightly stiff legs juxtaposed with a welcome breeze blowing cools against a newly exposed sweaty neck ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Opuntia echios, isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 17.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 11:12:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Caryophyllales
Info Closeup of a flat cactus (Opuntia echios), Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 11:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 11:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting image. Sharpness is not great all over, but I think it's adequate considering how close-up this must be. Cmao20 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea is good but the execution needs some work. The bottom spines are cut off at an awkward place, and I would like to see more depth of field (focus stacking would help). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KoH: I've tilted and cropped it using a newer processing version in Lr. Focus stacking is of course not possible anymore for this image --Poc o² 08:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but the blur on the left side is unfortunately something that may be too late to fix. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose King of Hearts put my ponderings into words. --Cart (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts.--Vulp here 05:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts --Booth sift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Measured oppose A nice idea, and good work technically, but per Cart King of Hearts put his finger on the problem: the crops. It was just not going to be possible, at least with this cactus, to take the picture you saw in your mind. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 18:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ford Mustang Oldtimertreffen Ebern 2019 6200572.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 15:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unmistakeably sixties aesthetic. Nice idea. Cmao20 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting perspective --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Podzemnik (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I just simply do not like it. JK, I like it enough for a Support--Booth sift 01:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice compo and subject --Poc o² 21:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shining -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. --Aristeas (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20; I love the way the reflected clouds give it sort of a psychedelic swirl. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be an album cover. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Christian above. --Yann (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Christof46 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 20:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Interiors
Info created by Google Art Project - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this supposed to be so dark? See File:La ronda de noche, por Rembrandt van Rijn.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, but since this file has a much higher resolution, I went with this one.--Peulle (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't know exactly how much, but it is certainly too dark. This is quite common for Google Art Project reproduction. --Yann (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Yann Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann --Booth sift 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian Fleet (1892) il. 12 Dvenadsat Apostolov - Restoration, cropped.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 22:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Stadler and Pattinot after Vasily Ignatius - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Looks really good, but I like the original, too. I take it, you're totally sure the differences between the original and this file are completely explained by yellowing and otherwise darkening that took place over time, but how sure are you of these brightness levels specifically? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've compared it to the Gallica copy. The paper was quite yellowed, so it does appear that that was adding a lot of yellow to the inks. Levels are compromised between this and the Gallica copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - OK, that's good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

$upport -- Eatcha (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bryce Amphitheater from Sunset Point 2019.jpg edit

I withdraw my nomination Taewangkorea (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 01:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States
Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Taewangkorea (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Taewangkorea (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong support -- Really like the view Adfasdfsdaddsd (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC) The account doesn't have 10 edits and according to COM:FPC such accounts cannot vote. Probably a sock puppet. Also see this, perhaps connected. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Plus this --Podzemnik (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Invalid vote - only 2 edits so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Very good iPhone picture, but I was able to guess that it was an iPhone picture before I looked at the metadata. It looks good at 300% of my 13-inch laptop screen, but at higher magnifications - which seem legitimate for this kind of panorama - compare it to King of Hearts' photo, nominated directly above this. Welcome, Adfasdfsdaddsd, but you need 50 edits before you can vote here, and the mere fact that a photo is a panorama is not really a good reason to support its evaluation as one of the very best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And nice try, attempting to impersonate me, Taewangkorea. Just compare. I think this merits a warning from an admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not bad for iPhone picture but viewing the file at only 50 % of its size, I can still see JPG artifacts in the sky and the landscape is lacking details (perhaps too much luminance has been applied). The sky pixelation is visible at 33 % only. Pretty good picture for a phone and I think we'll see more and more phone pictures at FPC in the future. But for now, to me the quality is not there yet and I'm not wowed enough to forgive what technical side is lacking. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality for a picture taken using an iPhone 7. --Booth sift 05:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose now per below--Booth sift 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lack of details --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? Taewangkorea (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Details like structure of the rocks and trees. Please compare with the photo above: File:Inspiration Point Bryce Canyon November 2018 panorama.jpg. --Cart (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Podzemnik. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The quality is actually very good, especially since we can consider the scenery itself part of the quality of a photo. But I must admit, that it could be sharper on some of the details when viewed in full resolution. I do not want to punish people who only have rubbish Apple products more than they are already punished, but while I cannot oppose, I cannot support either. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very surprised this has got support from some established users. It's high-resolution and sufficient quality to use in articles, so thanks for the contribution, but quite apart from the low detail at full-res there are other major flaws including the washed-out sky and the fact that the whole image seems to be leaning to the right. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oer Cmao20 and others. Also I refuse to support with this much vandalism going on, one instance by the nominator himself, others by IP adresses. – Lucas 16:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Taewangkorea (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chapel of Saint Lawrence, Śnieżka (Schneekoppe, Sněžka).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 08:38:35 (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) 08:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this a remarkable picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I especially love to see this in summer! --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great high-key photography. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, and just the cooling I need in these hot days ;-). --Aristeas (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Uoaei1 (Not as hot here in the Northeast US as it's been in Europe, but I am nonetheless typing this with a fan on). Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me, though I'd wish some more crispness. --A.Savin 12:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good on you that you managed to take your camera out and click! Must have been freezing. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nelly Diener cropped.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 09:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Swissair / ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, restored and uploaded by PawełMM and Brandmeister, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nelly Diener, the first air stewardess in Europe, standing in front of the Curtis AT-32C Condor, in which she would lose her life on 27 July 1934.
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Should historic photos be cropped? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Well, we do that all the time. It is OK here as no important part was removed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How famous is the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you're second-guessing the photographer. Would you be willing to offer the original as an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, the unrestored version? Why would you vote for that? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. No, I guess not. Restoration would be needed, either way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be more room on the left, if any is available before cropping. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good photo for the time, and sad to think that this was the aircraft in which she lost her life. Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Post-and-Grant-Avenue-Look.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 09:49:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: Ruins in vicinity of Post and Grant Avenue. Looking northeast.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by H. D. Chadwick, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: Ruins in vicinity of Post and Grant Avenue. Looking northeast.
Support The resolution is not very high, but still within the rules. I think the historical value overcomes that. -- Yann (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann's argument. Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 017.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 07:29:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Huge ridge dune in Sossusvlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 07:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 07:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition with how the ridge of the dune leads the eye into the distance. Sufficiently different from your other dune FPs. Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support. I love the way the people help illustrate the sheer scale of the whole thing, but I'm slightly bothered by how close the edge of the shadow is to the bottom of the frame. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KoH, I've exanded the crop Poc o² 08:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I didn't like the huge shadow before, but in the context of the expanded crop, it works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scintillant hummingbird (Selasphorus scintilla) female feeding, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 12:20:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Scintillant hummingbird feeding 1 of set of 3
Scintillant hummingbird feeding 2 of set of 3
Scintillant hummingbird feeding 3 of set of 3

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info The scintillant hummingbird is a regional endemic restricted to the Costa Rica and Panama highlands. It is so small (it weighs 2gm), it cannot reach nectar in the normal way. It has to pierce the base of the flower (Abutilon sp.). This cunning way of feeding means that it plays no part in pollination. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting set, and very good quality - excellent work. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Very nice images indeed. If you would nominate them separately I'd have a problem to promote the second or third, whatever is nominated later. And as a set I don't really understand why these picture are included in a set, specially the second and right. None of the criteria for a set applies here IMHO. Charles, what was your motivation? Poc o² 20:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought illustrating the way the bird hovers then pirces the flower was valuable here. It's a very unusual behaviour. The first image is the highest quality. I had intended to also add a GIF or APNG of a total of 8 images but can't work out how to make one of high enough quality!. I think this FP set criterion applies: 'A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object. (my bold). If I've misinterpreted the rules, the we could change the nomination I guess which would be a shame. Charles (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the more rarely used of the set criteria, but is precisely the type of thing I had in mind when I originally proposed them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are excellent pictures. But as a set the second and the third image are really very similar -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way she stretches out her body while hovering. I am guessing this is the only way she can generate enough force to penetrate the flower. I've never seen a hummingbird doing anything similar before. Charles (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Since the 3 pictures are impressive enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Different enough and good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and enlightening (see Charles’ comment). --Aristeas (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I would have liked a bit more difference between 2 and 3 but all the photos are really good. --Cart (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everybody who has seen these birds in live knows how difficult is to photograph them. Respect. -- -donald- (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golden-eyed tree frog (Agalychnis annae).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 19:14:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info This litle frog is classified as endangered. The good news is that it survives well in an urban setting. This one was living in the large gardens of a suburban hotel. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, especially since it documents an endangered species. Cmao20 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Poc o² 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Great shot and great encyclopedic value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Fischer.H (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great compo Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light's a little harsh, but not so harsh I would oppose, and given its status I can forego that concern as long as we have a picture otherwise this good. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rockies in the morning.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 16:29:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info Canadian Rockies in the morning. Banff National Park. All by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly very beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Fischer.H (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support with two comments: the colors look a bit oversaturated to be natural, and according to the image description this image was taken in the afternoon, not in the morning. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In my camera I set UTC time. In this part of Canada time is UTC-5. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But: IMO there are minor dust spots at the left. Please fix it. --XRay ^talk 10:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any dust spots. Maybe these are JPEG artifacts? -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice compo, colors, sky, ect... though the snow is a bit blown. Still a great image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH! --El Grafo (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pleasure to support this on Canada Day ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sri Lankan Leopard at Wilpattu national park - (Brave Beauty).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 15:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
Info created by Senthiaathavan - uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by Senthiaathavan -- Senthiaathavan (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Senthiaathavan (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To remove the background noise should not be a problem, but the yellow light in the foreground doesn't match here at all. --Ermell (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good picture on the whole, but the yellow light in the foreground is a distracting technical flaw. Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The yellow light in the foreground ruins it in my opinion. --Booth sift 17:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What is that yellow light from, anyway? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Not going overcome these six opposes with that yellow light --Booth sift 00:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:McClure Tunnel west.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2019 at 01:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Steve Lyon - uploaded by Rschen7754 - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info First nomination. --Cart (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a very good image, but the interruptions in the light trails are a bit disturbing. --MB-one (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It nearly passed last time, seems OK to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like it.--Peulle (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The right part cuts the symmetry and I don't find this view attractive -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no sense in this re-nomination without any change of the image. This image is not outstanding enough to win the star. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coast - Los Cancajos 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 05:24:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by SCP-2000 -- SCP-2000 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SCP-2000 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but I think it looks underexposed. --Cart (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the image is slightly underexposed and not 100% sharp. If the crabs on the rock could be seen right away, it would be a FP. --Ermell (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell, unfortunately, because it's a really good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the image is too dark and too unsharp. --XRay ^talk 09:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, and a good composition, but unfortunately not quite sharp enough. Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others above, despite it being a good composition. --Booth sift 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: With 6 opposes and the sharpness, it's not going to succeed. --Booth sift 05:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:JewelSingaporeVortex1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 04:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

HSBC Rain Vortex in the Jewel entertainment and retail complex, Changi Airport, Singapore

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Matteo Morando - uploaded by Matteo Morando - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 04:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine (✉) 04:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly bothered by the lack of perfect symmetry but otherwise great shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed on the sides (shadows are crushed to black), overal too high contrast, and CAs on all the windows. Camera position was not in the center it seems (see escalators). Pixel detail is quite low although the camera is quite capable (max. 36 Mpx). Needs slight sharpening. – Lucas 06:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a remarkable sight, certainly with wow. This airport is only recently completed, so I would expect more images to come. This one is technically weak/downsized per Lucas. -- Colin (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it's not technical perfect, but all in all it's a FP for me. --Stepro (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose copyvio from https://www.mottmac.com/releases/official-opening-of-jewel-changi-airport-jewel -- Eatcha (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info That is very unlikely. The photo on Commons has all EXIF data, which has no on the website you specified. --Stepro (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not uncommon for photographers to upload a couple of their photos here on Commons to get a bit more exposure for their work. You could ask the author for an COM:OTRS ticket just to be on the safe side. Most of us have been in similar situations. I had to supply an OTRS for a photo that was harvested from my Flickr account before I had time to upload it here. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Things are in motion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:JewelSingaporeVortex1.jpg --Cart (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why the date on the EXIF is 18 March 2018, the airport was not open for the public at that time see infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Changi_Airport . On the contrary Mott_MacDonald provided building engineering services for the development, thus they were easily able to photograph it before it was Opened for public. -- Eatcha (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at the photo's deletion request, let's keep that conversation there. There were several previews of the airport before it opened, or the photographer could simply work for a PR company with early access, be a salesperson in one of the stores in the airport or something. That doesn't matter if he want to make his photos available here under a Commons license and can confirm to the OTRS people that the photo is his. --Cart (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Dramatic shot, and great architecture, but quality is not perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others above, the quality is not FP level IMO--Booth sift 00:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose for so many of the reasons listed above: uncertain copyright status and just not as sharp as it could be. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colorful neon street signs in Kabukichō, Shinjuku, Tokyo.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 02:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great! I'm shocked that you could get such a sharp night picture with an exposure of only 1/8 of a second! Should I be? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was taken with a tripod -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support fond memories... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great material, Basile! --Podzemnik (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan, impressive quality. Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×× Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Photographer taking a group photograph of smiling students in front of the Tokyo station, Marunouchi, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 02:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! I love it. --Yann (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love it, too. I'm curious whether you spoke with the photographer, teacher and students afterwards. (Of course you weren't required to, but if you did, it might have been fun.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was on a roof terrasse, located quite far from them. In addition, Japanese language is not really my strongest skill :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Though some Japanese people speak English. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support so meta ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann and Martin. --Aristeas (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rocky Masum (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charles Conrad (S64-31465).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 09:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info Restored by NASA and uploaded/nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk)
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better, the straightening was simply unnecessarily and made him look stoic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the way those blue eyes look like they could be looking right through you (And I say that as someone who has blue eyes). Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IMG drongo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 12:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good effort, but too much colour noise and lack of sharpness on the wing, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Peulle --Stepro (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. Yes, there are parts not sharp, the wings, but the bird is moving ... --Neptuul (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but noisy picture, and low level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree Puelle Seven Pandas (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin.--Vulp here 03:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately per Basile, great capture but probably not FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know that the bird is moving, but what Basile says still applies. --Booth sift 00:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019-06-02 BeachVolleyball, Die Techniker beach tour Nürnberg StP 1983 LR10 by Stepro.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 14:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Stepro (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stepro (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is not on the right side. The guy in the middle is distracting. Cluttered composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a sports photo. That said you are (especially at larger events) not free in choice of your position, you can't tell staff to move away from the scene and you can't repeat a scene. Regarding all this it is sharp, you can see the movement of the spraying champagne and it is reasonably lit, a clear wow moment for the participants and wowy enough for me to support it. --Granada (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Charles (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't work for me --Booth sift 00:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other than the spraying champagne, it's in focus and I like the exuberance captured here. I like that the streams cross. You can't plan this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, and the man in the middle is in just the right place not to be a problem with the form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with Basile overall, good but not great for me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-3a.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 15:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Bridge over Lima Lima, Ponte da Barca, Portugal, seem from south. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice compo, nice contrast blue/grey/green. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please check for dust spots (see the note)? It'd be good to remove the sharpening halo on the right side of the bridge. Also, did you remove CA? The edges of the buildings on the left seem to be a bit greenish. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:190701 HK Protest Incendo 05.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2019 at 17:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990-now
Info Hong Kong anti-extradition law protest on 1 July 2019 ~~ created by Studio Incendo - uploaded by Wefk423 - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, not enough detail. It also looks more like a photo from a rock consert than a protest and the glary street light is not helping. Small tip: Photos taken with mobile phone camera very, very seldom make good FPs. --Cart (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree Cart. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It looks like a protest to me, given the banners. It's a valuable photo, but the quality is not good enough for QI or FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 12:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Useful image, but as Cart says, phone-camera pictures are seldom FP. Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above--Booth sift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 04:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swakopmund Jetty HDR.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2019 at 16:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Daniel Kraft, nominated by Yann (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice long sight lines and a peaceful mood, but because of the noise, I can't judge this to be one of the best photos on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek, sorry. --A.Savin 08:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly per Ikan and A. Savin. I like it, on the whole, but the noise, the slightly dull light and the blown-out clouds on the top right mean that it isn't FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Poc o² 19:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan --Booth sift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your participation. --Yann (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atomic Bomb Dome and Motoyaso River, Hiroshima, Northwest view 20190417 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2019 at 14:31:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
Info A northwest view of the Atomic Bomb Dome and Motoyasu River, Hiroshima. A good, high-quality view of the city, including its most tragically famous landmark. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing particulary wow in this skyline, sorry --Wilfredor (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredor. Useful but not IMO inspiring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the direction of light, and the quality is quite good. We don't have many FPs of second-tier cities in Japan. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I indeed miss something here Poc o² 19:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wilfredor --Booth sift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination It seems unlikely to pass. Thanks for all the reviews anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 72-74 HDR.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 19:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Morning view of the city of Cádiz from the belltower of its cathedral. c/u/n Poc o² 19:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great quality as ever for your images, but it's a bit drab and gray. More like a QI than an FP to me, unfortunately - if it were a nice sunny day, it would be a support from me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to see more image on bottom --Wilfredor (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can show more at the bottom but it isn't really pretty, will upload it in aprox. 8 hours --Poc o² 08:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is a bit too dull, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wilfredor, KoH I've uploaded (and right away reverted) a version with the whole crop. You'll probably confirm my opinion, and as we're going nowhere with this nom, I take it back, Poc o² 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this version with less sky could be FP, but its just my opinion. A hug --Wilfredor (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:PMSP engaging in road traffic enforcement.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 06:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Governo do Estado de São Paulo - uploaded by 廣九直通車 - nominated by 廣九直通車 -- 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Among most automobile images of PMESP hosted on Commons, I found this is quite clear. The lights are also looks quite good. Perhaps I can give this image a try? 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe a valuable image, but not inspiring to me for FP. And secondarily, all the lights look severely blown to me (others can confirm or refute this), and the left crop is very close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactly per Ikan. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for me, the angle is a bit too low.--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per Ikan Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Not going to overcome 5 opposes, even the nominator is only a "weak support"--Booth sift 00:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hochkaltergebirge.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 12:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hochkalter mountains in the Berchtesgaden Alps

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Instructive view of the Hochkalter mountains. All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful place, but the dull midday lighting is not doing it any justice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't decided how to vote yet but please fix a bug and the left bottom corner. See the notes. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King, sorry. Also the composition is not as interesting as in most of your landscape panoramics. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing outstanding. -- -donald- (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas 18:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Yann (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King; had it not been for his !vote I might have supported, but he's right, the bar has been set high. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Hochkaltergruppe looks like this. For an instructive image, I find the light that prevails most of the day to be best. Anyone who is interested in this mountains will also find the image interesting because many of the details mentioned in de:Hochkalter are show here in synopsis. @Podzemnik: I fixed the issues you mentioned. --Milseburg (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedestrian road with pavements, paper umbrellas and people in yukata, Higashiyama-ku, Kyoto, Japan.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2019 at 02:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A decent QI, but no real wow factor for me. Also a bit hazy.--Peulle (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lovely place and the photo is very reminiscent of the first photos of life in Japan, but a slightly less centered point of view might have been better. Also following the lines of this nice place to the vanishing point and you get - a construction site. A step or two to the left and things might have been better (and avoided the Starbucks sign). --Cart (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Starbucks gets everywhere! A nice street scene, I like what the soft light does to it. Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle Poc o² 19:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of wow factor actually for me, but I guess it takes a trip to Japan (or even paying attention to details alone) to realise it's maybe not that easy to get a shot like that, with proper framing, a good light and only a couple (wearing kimonos) walking in the middle of a very picturesque street. Almost feels staged. - Benh (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the way, if you used f/13 to get maximum DOF, I don't think you needed to. compared to something like f/8, you only get 60cm more of "sharp" area (1.6m to infinite again 1m to infinite with f/13) - Benh (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benh, thanks for your review. How do you make this calculation ? See this picture for example at f/8 where the sides were unsharp, while the distance was higher than 1.6m (and the focal length wider). -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basile, I use a DOF calculator (mine is from Photopills but they provide a web version as well. I don't trust them actually, because most don't take in account the resolution of the sensor (like the one for photopills), but my point was that maybe it wasn't necessary to stop down this much. Based on the Photopills DOF calc, you need to focus at about 3m, not at infinity, for this to work. - Benh (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Very technical. But difficult to use in practice (in the street without computer). Here I used the autofocus, targeting the walking people. So f/13 was to get the foreground as sharp as possible, with this priority. Maybe with static subjects I would have processed differently. Interesting tool, though -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice to see a photo from Japan, but no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 00:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Perhaps the couple was not close enough, unfortunately they took a road aside and disappeared just after this picture. At midday the light was also maybe too strong -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erik Werenskiold - Peasant Burial - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 16:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Outdoor_events
Info created by painter Erik Werenskiold, "Peasant burial" is a classic national romantic painting, illustrating the desire to emphasize the place of the farmer in Norwegian history. Uploaded by Google Art Project - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good find. Cmao20 (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't normally vote on paintings, but this one's refreshingly different and the digital reproduction looks very well done. --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good painting and good reproduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made from life.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media#Outdoor_events

File:Sunrise in the Valley of Fire.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 18:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Nevada
Info: all by me -- СССР (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Really beautiful, but sharpened at too high of a radius, resulting in weird-looking edges. Also could use a little more space at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts, a great-looking panorama at thumbnail, but looks like way too high-radius sharpening that's made it look very odd at full-res. I think it's worth having a go at processing this from RAW a lot more naturally, then I would probably support. Cmao20 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20 and King of Hearts--Booth sift 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:View to Piran from St. George's Parish Church, Piran, Slovenia 11.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 15:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info View of Piran from St. George's Parish Church, Piran, Slovenia. I like the chaotic beauty of this image, as well as the colours and shapes it contains. Created by Podzemnik - uploaded by Podzemnik - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Cmao20 for nominating this. I was thinking about nominating the photo myself. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC) PS: Will you find a cat?[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wet-blanket oppose Well done technically, but all I see is a chaotic collection of clashing forms. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Daniel, not sure where to look at here --Poc o² 21:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Viewed as an abstract composition, it's very good; even if some of the crops could be seen in isolation as a bit arbitrary, it works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chaotic collection of forms, that's why it is interesting. ;o) --Yann (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the chaos --Llez (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little too late I found out what was bugging me with this photo: The blue window on the left. Crop it out (getting rid of the shadow below it is a bonus) and you get a harmonious clutter. Never mind that now. ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vladimir asv2019-01 img10 Water Tower.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 15:36:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Stairwell of the Water Tower in Vladimir, Russia. All by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Cmao20 (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like these kinds of photos, and this one is well-executed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pleasing abstraction that evokes hints of a toilet and/or a ringed finger. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Глаз флерницы.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 20:01:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info Chrysopidae еуе / Created by Грибков михаил - uploaded by Грибков михаил - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically flawed, of course, but a great picture nonetheless. Cmao20 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite amazing to look at! But could the magnification be added, and ideally, something about the camera and photo-taking? The Metadata seems to be mostly about the editing, not the photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But +1 for more details, as mentioned by Ikan Kekek. --Yann (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with others Taewangkorea (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20180128 FIS NC Worldcup Seefeld Ilka Herola 850 2666.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 07:13:31

Info Downscaled and still unsharp as hell. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Granada (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delist reason is nothing that wasn't touched on in the original nom discussion. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Overall sharp enough for a panning shot. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above... Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Although I will concede that it may be too soon to do a keep/delist nom at this time, it is the photographer himself who nominates this for delisting. Who am I to disagree when someone says their own photo is not good enough?--Peulle (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The author wanted it himself so...@KennyOMG: , @Cmao20: , @Martin Falbisoner: --Booth sift 01:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Granada, you want to delist your own photo that you nominated yourself? That's very confusing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Granada can explain the motivation, last year he was convinced that the picture was a FP and now the opposite, indeed confusing Poc o² 08:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standards change. In 2019 I did better at the nordic combined world championships and some of the panned shots of ski jumpers were sharp even at 100%. --Granada (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Valid argument to me Poc o² 21:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please nominate any photos you believe would merit FP designation. I feel very strange being asked to negate a vote I made last February, so I decline to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, would you support this photo now that you have gathered more experience as a reviewer? I think that that would be rather the question to answer. --Poc o² 21:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Yes, I would. Keep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote I did better, not good enough for FPC. --Granada (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is good enough for FP, but if you successfully nominate 5 or 7 new photos of similar motifs that are way better than this, we could revisit this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--Vulp here 05:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others -- Eatcha (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If Granada thinks he has better images in the pipeline, let him nominate them first. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daniel, I'd be happy to support a delist and replace if the newer image is similar and better. That's what I plan to do with Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 1.jpg if I ever get around to reshooting it with my yet to be acquired Nikon Z 7 Mark II. For me, it is only acceptable to delist an image that still meets our FP criteria on Commons if 1) there is a proposed replacement which is clearly better and 2) the creator of the original FP consents to it (usually this means a like-for-like replacement by the creator). This stands in contrast to English Wikipedia, where 2 is not required. Here 1 is not met. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it's a good idea to nominate that big panorama for any kind of delisting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 delist, 8 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted.

File:Église Saint-Laurent de Laurac007.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 06:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I find the subject very interesting, but the light is a little bit grey and flat. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Cmao. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao. The village is beautiful, the perspective good, just the light is flat, it’s a pity. --Aristeas (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao28 and Aristeas. To me, the photo is missing the magic of a photograph at sunset or perhaps in a sunshower or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao and Aristeas. --Booth sift 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inspiration Point Bryce Canyon November 2018 panorama.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 02:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is superb. Great work KoH. Cmao20 (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well executed, excellent angle and a clasic picture that we have with us, good --Wilfredor (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support × Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Too little info about imageTaewangkorea (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great image. Agree with othersTaewangkorea (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should count this vote as valid. 1) It's clearly a revenge vote, 2) the reason is not true (there is enough information about the image), 3) even though I'm trying to assume good faith, after seeing what happened here (check the history), I'm struggling to see how contributions of this user to the project will end up in a positive manner. If anybody disagree with me, feel free to revert me. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

some kind of revenge vote? You're really into bad first impressions, aren't you, Taewangkorea? Please do contribute to this project in a civil manner. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user also reverted a warning post to their user talk page. I think they will earn a block very soon and should be given one without hesitation at the very next violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What time of day is it? Good image overall and I will support after I know Taewangkorea (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the info on the file page you will see that it is 08:15 in the morning. --Cart (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Taewangkorea (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Small point. Below left the photo is a bit flat.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Callithrix penicillata - Maroparque 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 05:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too cramped on the right hand side for me. Charles (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much better, but still a bit imbalanced. Charles (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Too cramped on both sides for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I uploaded a version with a wider crop --Llez (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks. I'm undecided now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Generally in a zoo it is easier to make more spacious shots, without it being High-angle and with more space on the right. the focused composition does not work for me either the strong flash that could annoy an already trapped animal --Wilfredor (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Castle Tarde in La Roque-Gageac.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 15:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info created & uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the castle almost blends into the cliff. Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite a sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coelodonta antiquitatis Crane.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 18:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not only interesting but a nice shape. Boothsift, these photos by Archaeodontosaurus you've been nominating are excellent finds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thank you--Booth sift 01:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you all and especially Boothsift for these choices; he's a good conductor. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could be sharper IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Meybille Bay 07.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 17:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice photo, but I think I'd like it better with somewhat less sand (even though the sand is nice and very well photographed). I'll post an approximate suggested crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support (after the crop) - Some of the surf looks very bright, but that could be partly my screen. Anyway, I like the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support due to the overexposed surf and sky above it. Understandable, however, to get the raking light on the rock. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beach, New Brighton, New Zealand 06.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 22:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I just like the light and the lazy atmosphere of the photo - people walking on the beach during the sunset, listening to seagulls and sounds of the waves. -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Kind of reminds me of Denmark. :-) --Cart (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Also beautiful light and an excellent composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support mountains - or hills - in Denmark, Cart!? ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Martin, if you lie down on your back, squint with one eye up at the dunes and use your imagination, they "kind of remind you" of hills. :-) --Cart (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite noisy, especially the beach --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1 I've denoised a bit. I think this is the best I can do - I don't want to push it too hard or downsize just because of that part. I thinks it's acceptable :) --Podzemnik (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little bit noisier and less sharp than I'd like, per Uoaei1, but still good. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition, timing, lighting, atmospheric conditions... I think it has it all :) - Benh (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Etang du Pla de la Font 09.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2019 at 12:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please fix the corners. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Fix the corners first--Booth sift 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand why you are so fond of editing your photos so they are without highlights and shadows. Just by adjusting the levels a bit and bring back the highs and lows, this would look so much better IMO. --Cart (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Cart's edit looks better, though perhaps I wouldn't have taken the blacks as far as he did. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Cart? That would be as far as she did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Ikan, it's a common mistake. Wrt the blacks, I only had the jpeg to work with as an example. This would be more subtle working from raw. --Cart (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I totally didn't know! My apologies. Looking back at it, it's probably because of your former userpage; I didn't look closely enough and didn't realize the person in the picture was a woman. In the same situation I would probably have used Dorothea Lange. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, during my first year here I thought that Yann and Llez were women (or am I wrong this time too?), so waddoyou know. Calamity Jane (CJ) is a better match for me since it's my nickname IRL. --Cart (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The left upper third is very unsharp (see note) --Llez (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose But I would probably support something along the lines of Cart's edit. The picture at the moment is very beautiful but the colours do look quite flat, with no real shadows or highlights. Cmao20 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.--Vulp here 16:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Montreal Skyline from Mont Royal.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2019 at 01:04:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some noise in the trees, and a small white unstitched area on the lower right third. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done King of thanks for the review. Ikan Kekek, Cmao20 --Wilfredor (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. A smaller aperture could have given more depth of field, but I'm not too bothered by a little unsharpness in the foreground vegetation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support but per KoH, see note --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm holding off for now, per KoH. Please fix the white area at the bottom margin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not perfect (noise in trees) but phenomenal resolution and overall very good quality. I will support as soon as the white area at the bottom is fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Resolution is great, but we already have a bunch of FPs from this view (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and the lighting of the existing FPs is mostly more interesting (or by night, which is more spectacular IMHO). Poc o² 19:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the highest-resolution FP of them all, so I think this does offer something new to the table. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor, I'm answering the comment you inserted in this FPC and later, for whatever reason and without mentioning anywhere, deleted. This user is not worried about delits, specially if you delist the image you linked (which was yours :). If you meant this FP, I indeed like the lighting there much more than here, those clouds add an interesting element in the compo IMHO. If your threat to delist an FP is your argument to defend this FP then that's a poor one.
KoH: That higher resolution is such an argument that compensates lighting or compo vs already existing FPs was not really clear to me, I'll nominate some candidates following that rule. Poc o² 08:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poc ese mensaje lo borre porque no era lo que yo queria decir, si ves todo lo que cambio ese mensaje en el historial te daras cuenta. Abrazos --Wilfredor (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on KoH’s reasoning, it’s not my favourite of the panoramas Poco links to, but it is the highest resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. But please Wilfredor can you fix the bottom? There are quite visible marks from copyediting. I put a note there. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Podzemnik thanks its gone --Wilfredor (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version edit

Info I think this version is higher resolution. Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, Johann Jaritz, Yann, Tournasol7, Famberhorst, Llez, Booth, King of, Poc --Wilfredor (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB is a bit green. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King of, thanks you was right, I rebuild fromm the original colors and using a selective WB. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Impressive resolution! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contrast is better above. Yann (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yann I added a selective contrast and curve adjustement. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, good. Now these are quite similar, so you should choose one of these, and withdraw the other one. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yann I can withdraw the other nomination version and it could take the votes from the other? --Wilfredor (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't take the votes, but you ask the voters to vote for this one instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 16:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I have uploaded a version that I consider superior so it is better to dismiss this nomination. Thank you very much for your recommendations --Wilfredor (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phalaenopsis orchidee (actm) 03.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 16:12:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Phalaenopsis orchidee #Family Orchidaceae.
Info Yellow flowering orchid (houseplant) with a beautiful drawing inside the flower.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Quality is very good but although it is a popular interiors flower a furniture as background looks awkward to me --Poc o² 21:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the texture of the petals. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. The backgrond is indeed too dominant and distracting, sorry. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Fischer.H (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per poco and Uoae1. The plant appears a bit sad.--Ermell (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above on this one sorry--Booth sift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flower itself is nicely done, but I'm with the other opposers as far as the background goes. --El Grafo (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info. Thank you for all your comments. This Phalaenopsis orchid is used as a houseplant in the Netherlands. For that reason I used the interior of our house as a background. That seemed appropriate to this beautiful houseplant.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Background doesn't bother me as much as the WB does. It looks too warm, like the post-processing did not correct for tungsten light. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why should it "correct" for the light that may have actually been in the room? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I can place an alternative with a different white balance.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Other white balance.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Falbisoner, Johann Jaritz, Ermell, Daniel Case, Seven Pandas, Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Vulphere, Uoaei1, Eatcha, Boothsift, and El Grafo: Alternative photo added.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Vulphere, Uoaei1, Eatcha, Boothsift, and El Grafo: Alternative photo added.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A bit cheerier, but I would go with whichever version is truer to life. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - better and like the first one too. Seven Pandas (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise at Maligne lake 3.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 16:33:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info Sunrise at Maligne lake. Canada, Jasper National Park. All by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Noisy in places, but, as ever, I prefer a bit of noise to the loss of texture that comes with too much noise reduction. Cmao20 (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great view but there is too much noise here and it needs a perspective correction --Poco² 21:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Comment Please fix per Poco's comments, I really want to support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed noise and made a perspective correction. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ great compo but a bit noisy as it is. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support better now with less noise, nice sky and reflections. Nice compo. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better now. It's unfortunate that a bit of the foreground rocks had to be cropped off, but nonetheless this is good enough to feature IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise in the foreground. Sorry. --Pine (✉) 02:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 04:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a beutiful view but the it's too noisy to me, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KSK (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Podzemnik. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daher-Socata TBM 900 Air to Air.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2019 at 13:54:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created and uploaded by Mamainiero - nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MB-one (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a very close crop. Charles (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let the poor thing breathe!... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, so sharp you can see the pilot's face.--Peulle (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others in spite of the crop, but Mamainiero, if you can add a little more lead room, particularly, please do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmee2 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Charles and Ikan, still good though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport

File:Klippen von Helgoland mit Langer Anna.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2019 at 08:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info The cliffs at the northwestern end of Heligoland with the Lange Anna. Other light, other position then my last nomination von hier. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous FP is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helgoland - Blick vom Lummenfelsen zur Langen Anna.jpg. (Previous failed FP by A.Savin Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heligoland 07-2016 photo15.jpg). Are you proposing to delist the other, which was criticised for poor lighting and only just passed 2:1 ratio. -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of similar FP (but would support a "delist and replace"). --A.Savin 11:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really. May there be only one FP of each motive? By a close look, location and perspective are actually different (see the wall for example), day and lighting are also. So I think a separat nomination is justified. --Milseburg (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if you think that both pictures complement each other well and without redundancies, you should have nominated them as a set, which I, however, would not have supported (you know why). --A.Savin 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently the unwritten case law is that recently promoted FPs should not be delisted except in the case of procedural error. I am genuinely not sure how I'd feel about changing that, but unless general consensus is obtained for such a thing, recent FPs should not be nominated for D&R. So in the meantime Support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- King of Hearts I think the delist issue with recent promotions was to avoid a case where someone was unhappy that an image got promoted and merely wanted to run the process again in order to get the result they wanted. A sort of "what were you guys thinking?" but ends up wasting our time as the same group of people still vote the same way. I don't think that affects D&R at all. I think here, Milseburg has taken the criticism of the previous nom on board, gone out to try to take a better picture in better light. The angle/crop is slightly different but the basic motif is the same. I don't think we should promote both, and the other one is clearly weaker. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I got confused and didn't realize these two were by the same nominator. In that case a D&R is very much reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the other one better. Also, the guy on the right is bugging me.--Peulle (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per savin ¦ Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The rock is too much in my face in this one. I like the other one better, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per savin.--Vulp here 12:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also prefer the other one, good image though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others sorry--Booth sift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there have been no new support !votes in four days besides the nominator's

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) 04:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otira Viaduct near Arthur's Pass 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2019 at 19:34:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think including this much foreground is a good idea, because it competes for attention with the viaduct. The midday lighting also isn't great. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose gotta go w/ king here. - Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 22:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with King here--Booth sift 23:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The viaduct is a nice motif, but per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018-12-1 HK St. Alfred's Church View.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 11:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by SCP-2000 - uploaded by SCP-2000 - nominated by SCP-2000 -- SCP-2000 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SCP-2000 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Way too noisy for FP, considering all the fantastic church interior photos that are FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did Denoise for the image.Is it better now? SCP-2000 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but you're competing in the same category as Diliff and several other fantastic photographers, so my vote remains as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Left and right sides are unsharp. I'm afraid that in this day and age it will be hard to get an interior photo taken at high ISO featured. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good composition but too noisy. --Pine (✉) 02:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above, really sorry--Booth sift 04:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A useful picture, and as per above the composition is good, but in quality terms this falls a long way short of our best church interiors. Have a look at the church interiors of Diliff, Uoaei1 and Poco a poco, to name only three, to see the kind of photography that would be considered strong material at FP. These usually tend to be shot with a tripod to enable a longer exposure at low ISO. Some authors also produce high-resolution stitched panoramas using a panoramic head. All this is probably worth investigating if you're interested in producing better-quality church interiors (not that this one is bad, but it's not FP). Cmao20 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 18:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Unsharpness and blown highlights. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winterslow Range, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 22:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's an autumn view of Winterslow Range with a side light. Canterbury, New Zealand. -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeez!!! I actually gasped when I saw this! (Only thing missing are the signal fires... Eat your heart out P.J.) --Cart (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this a lot. Charles (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is great and shows how, by comparison, many photos of mountains lack a really fine composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The uneven light creates suspense and depth. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a light! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Comment: older, much eroded mountains in the foreground, much younger ones in the background. --Cayambe (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. Thanks this photo I would like to return to New Zealand. Tournasol7 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish you could increase the geographic information content by announcing the names of some of the mountains. --Milseburg (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Milseburg Looking at the local tramping map, it's pretty much only 1 named mountain there. Rest of them aren't named. I put a not though to that mountain + a few notes that identify different ranges. Most of mountains here don't have names. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support So beautiful... - Benh (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 08:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! -Aristeas (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose There is no article in any language about Winterslow Range. This picture is amazing but it doesn't give any more information to the audience. --Gnosis (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosis Are you sure that it's a valid reason to oppose? We're not on Wikipedia here, local Featured Pictures don't have much connection to Wikipedia. Whoever wants to find more information, (s)he will. There are GPS coordinates, quite good description and notes. I don't really know what kind of "more information to the audience" you'd like there. Can you give me a hint, please? By the way, there is an article on Cebuano Wikipedia but I don't think that its existence is relevant to this nomination. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnosis: No idea how you came up with that strange notion. Please read rule #7 in Commons:Featured picture candidates#General rules: "7.Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project." The 'future projects' mentioned, includes that if an article about the mountains should be created, there should be a gorgeous photo of them waiting to be used. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnosis: please read the guidelines. This is Commons here, not Wikipedia FPC. The reason given to justify your vote is not valid -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sakhvlari.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2019 at 07:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The image of village Sakhvlari in the middle of Borjomi-Kharagauli National park.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Melberg| - uploaded by Melberg - nominated by Melberg -- Melberg (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Melberg (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors and composition, but unfortunately the sharpness is just below our typical standard for FPs. The image is soft in general, and the corners are smeared especially on the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with KoH, but I like your sensibility and hope to see more work by you here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 18:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the cross diagonal lines composition, but per others. Yann (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but I like the composition very much. Cmao20 (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 16:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose is it just me or is there something with the saturation of this image? - Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 22:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there have been no additional support !votes besides the nominator in two days, against six opposes

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

Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 15:35:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
Info created by Senthiaathavan - uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by Senthiaathavan -- Senthiaathavan (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Senthiaathavan (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like this, it's not perfect but the quality is overall good and the composition is a little more creative and unusual than we often see. Cmao20 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene looks spooky. What kind of light is that? Too little cat for my taste and too much of the uninteresting tree.--Ermell (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree. This is not comparable in clarity to Charles' jaguar photos, for example. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the light may be artifical - but I like the mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mystic light feels new for our wildlife photos. --Cart (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mystic? Just a searchlight and we try to avoid this type of image! And not sharp enough Charles (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the source of the light, only the effect it creates. Just like with so many other gadgets and tricks used by photographers to get a good photo. ;-) Btw, who are the "we" that tries to avoid this type of images? Is there an assembly of wildlife photographers dictating how animals should be depicted on FPC or are you using the pluralis maiestatis about yourself? --Cart (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, you take a lot of photos with a flash, and some voters here have objected to that. Lay out the practical difference to the animal between that and this. I ask sincerely, simply because I don't know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was using the Royal We, apologies. Typically this light pattern comes from the safari vehicle guide's seach light/spotlight, not the photographer's. It's a low-temperature light that results in a browny-ornage tone. It can be used for special effects, but wildlife photographers prefer off-camera flash. With well-executued flash, you get nice colours. Sometimes there isn't time for that (or the subject is too far away) and, as you say, images taken with direct flash can seem harsh. But if it's direct flash or nothing, I'll go with direct flash. The generally accepted 'animal-concern' advice is to avoid flashing diurnal mammals. And for noctuurnal mammals, make sure the main flash is off-camera. For reptiles, amphibians and arthropods, there is not thought to be any danger to the animal. Any light of course, may reveal prey to a predator. I've never ever seen a predator attack when there's a light shining on a prey-anaimal, but I guess it can happen. Charles (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark or / and too small subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The leopard is too insignificant for me to support it--Booth sift 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cart --Llez (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wild animal in its environment, and I like the tree. --Yann (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those I didn't think I'd support at first. But, per Cart, I came around when I saw it at full size. Just arty enough. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for me too much tree, and the light is not great per Charles. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hummus Dip (30863436677).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 21:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Ella Olsson - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine (✉) 02:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bowl on the left was cut off. --Boothsift 02:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is on purpose. Tomer T (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, yes. Let's bring FPC kicking and screaming from the ideals of Baroque still-life food depiction into modern food presentation and food photography. The idea is to see every part/item of the composition as if they were elements in an abstract painting. Here the cut off circle(bowl of chickpeas) is a perfect balance for the larger circle(bowl of hummus) and the break-frame lines of the folded cloth. The compo is then fine-tuned by the bold red X(slices of bell pepper) and various color infusions made with yellow(oil in the hummus) and green(herbes). --Cart (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Bootshift.--Ermell (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift.--Peulle (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, unfortunately. Any alts available? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's nothing wrong with a cut bowl. -- KennyOMG (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent, and per Cart. Cut-off bowls and plates are absolutely normal in modern professional food photography, just as cropping off the top of someone's head is absolutely normal in modern professional portrait photography, though you'd never guess that looking at our very conservative choices at FP. Just stick "food photography" into a Google Image search, and you will find cut-off bowls and plates everywhere. This is a great photo and is making me hungry. Who's got some warm pita bread? -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Colin. This is a textbook example of food photography done well. The cut bowl is a brave and successful compositional choice, not an error. Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Yarl 💭 16:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unpleasant top view and bad crop --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's wrong with the bowl? I think it's an excellent composition. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support That kind of crop is pretty much standard in food photography. I wish we had more food photographers contributing to Wikimedia Commons! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Cart, Colin etc. --El Grafo (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Charles (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is OK for me, however, there are lots of clipped whites on the hummus and I have the impression that its colour on the photo is not quite true. --A.Savin 11:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with you. At anything larger than the size of my screen, it doesn't really look like hummus to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, the color is kind of pale but the texture seems right; this is one of those food photos where whatever else you're doing you want to dig in. Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Karelj (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but for the tight crop in left. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-5a.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 15:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Bridge over Lima Lima, Ponte da Barca, Portugal, seem from south. all by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The right side is too dark, making the composition a bit unbalanced to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine (✉) 02:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per KoH, something about the composition doesn't feel quite right. Still good though. Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Put a boat in the center and you've really got something, but as it is it looks like an empty stage to me. Sorry, no WOW. --El Grafo (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too cold white balance, right side dark, no wow. -- -donald- (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per -donald-; the contrail is also something I can't unsee. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Karelj (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, sorry. But more exciting light could make it a FP. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de la Santa Cruz y Santa Eulalia -- 2019 -- Barcelona, España.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 23:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by me, -- Alurín (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alurín (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I note that this was taken 4 minutes before sunrise, about 30 degrees away from being directly into the sun. Backlit scenes are great for silhouettes and getting a glow effect (e.g. on vegetation and hair), but in general they rob subjects of contrast and clarity. Also would prefer more resolution for an architectural shot with no mitigating factors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the level of detail is very good, but I would prefer a larger image. The moderate level of light does not bother me. --Pine (✉) 02:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Because of the resolution, I don't mind that it's backlit. Cmao20 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I voted too soon. I checked the EXIF data and this camera should be capable of 24 MP images. So either this is a crop from a larger image, or it's downsampled. If the latter, @Alurín: , would it be possible for you to supply the original-resolution picture? I will Abstain till then. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my question Alurín. Quality at full-res could be higher, but if I supported the smaller version at first, I will also Support this version. Cmao20 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Alurín but I think the resolution should be higher. 3.6MP is acceptable for wildlife or something really hard to capture but for architecture where you can use a tripod and take your time, I'd like to see more megapixels. It's the only reason for me to oppose though, everything else is great. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course! tomorrow I upload the photograph with more resolution. --Alurín (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- better now? @Cmao20: @Pine: @Podzemnik: @King of Hearts: --Alurín (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The world belongs to those who get up early. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But not to the photographer unless the sun is in the right place! Charles (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is not great -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not just because of the light, but because of the oversharpening evident on the upper parts of the spire and finials. Daniel Case (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light per others. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 03:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (actm.) 13.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 04:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Paeonia #Family Paeoniaceae
Info created and uploaded by Agnes Monkelbaan - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 04:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 04:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever the outcome of this nom, the file name needs to be changed to something that better describes the subject in the photo. This should be done after the nom is closed since it will mess up the code for the nom. --Cart (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Ok--Booth sift 18:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I'm usually a great admirer of this user's macro photography, but compositionally this one doesn't do a lot for me. But I will still support because of the good resolution and quality. Cmao20 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support Some magenta areas on the flower, a bit of posterization inevitable with this kind of shot ... they can be taken care of later and don't ruin it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Jotus karllagerfeldi.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2019 at 12:54:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Salticidae (Jumping Spiders)
Info created by Mark Newton - uploaded and nominated by Habitator terrae -- Habitator terrae 🌍 12:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Picture with much WOW. Not best resolution (/quality), but the spider is only five millimetres long. So I think this is a very nice quality. Habitator terrae 🌍 12:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Habitator terrae 🌍 12:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A's front leg very blurry even in thumb size. Renata3 (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Renata3 --Booth sift 00:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low quality.--Peulle (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 16:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Renata3. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noctilucent clouds over Slovakia in 21st of June, 2019 (1).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2019 at 07:05:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info all by Chmee2 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very beautiful, but quite noisy. Looking in the noctilucent clouds category, I can see this image which is to my mind a little bit better. Cmao20 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above--Booth sift 00:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough and too much noise. Why ISO 6.400, why only f/4? --XRay ^talk 09:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy to the point where I cannot tell if it is an actual photograph or just a painting when zoomed in slightly, among other things. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 07:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; we already have one featured picture of noctilucent clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lizard bd.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 06:14:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever the outcome of this nom, the file name needs to be changed to something that better describes the subject in the photo. This should be done after the nom is closed since it will mess up the code for the nom. --Cart (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but I can see a significant amount of posterisation in the background, especially visible to the left of the lizard's head but elsewhere as well. Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now the composition doesn't work well for me. You could try to cut more of the left and top -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Cmao20--Booth sift 01:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, composition (looks like "Lizard attacking a blade of dead grass, for some unfathomable reason"). Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Composition/pose. -- Colin (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Feeding pigeons.jpg (delist), delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 05:54:21

Info Hi, this was nominated ten years ago, back in 2009. In its nomination, it was featured as it "told" a story, not because of its amazing quality. However, ten years later, this no longer meets the standards for quality in my opinion. Especially with the flying pigeons, which in my opinion is no longer on par with what can be achieved today. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Booth sift 05:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The pigeons are all over the place, hardly anything is sharp despite fairly low resolution; I agree that this isn't an FP in 2019.--Peulle (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom and Peulle, and it's not old or famous enough to qualify as a historic picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others.--Ermell (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The 'story' it tells doesn't really hold very much appeal for me, it feels more cliched than profound. The image quality is unfortunately not FP standard nowadays. Cmao20 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others. --Cayambe (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist .--Vulp here 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per {{Info}} ×× Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist God ... how long has it been since even one of the editors who voted on that nomination have contributed here? Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yann still contributes like almost everyday if that answers your question. - Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 04:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but he only !voted on the alt in that one ... But he's the only one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're sure about that? George Chernilevsky and kallerna never contribute anymore? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist (got ya Daniel). —kallerna (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 13:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common chicory in a patch of sunlight.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2019 at 09:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae
Info This plant grew in the shadows under a lilac bush; a patch of sunlight hit it and the flowers lit up like a cluster of little mini fireworks bursts. -- Cart (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-framed. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a photo in which the form and sharpness of the flowers in the light makes it perfectly OK that much of the frame is dark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 for the sunlight. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rain over Holma marina.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 10:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Rain
Info Some of you have said you want me around for my ~~crazy~~'unusual' noms, so here goes. How else are you going to illustrate the leaden light and soft calm that come with such a rain. It deprives the scene of color, leaving only the most colorful items like a natural selective desaturation. -- Cart (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bleak and depressing, but that's the point. Excellent composition. Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Different, yes, but not wowing me. Rules are made to be broken of course, but here I just don't see anything that justifies including the sky on an overcast day with no interesting clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just overcast, it's pouring, and you rarely see cloud formations when you are in the middle of a downpour. If you look at the photo at full size you can see the streaks of rain all over the photo. For the sake of my camera, I had to take the photo from inside my car since I don't have a waterproof house for it. Anyway, I wasn't going for fluffy dramatic clouds, I was trying to capture the steel-gray limbo of this kind of day. --Cart (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Cmao20. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts.--Ermell (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- agree Cmao Seven Pandas (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support: Thanks for daring to be different. Few people would even think about getting their camera out under conditions like this. These people will never experience how *beep*ing difficult it is to photograph rain. I mean, if you look closely, you can (with some experience) tell that it is indeed pouring heavily in this scene, but you might be forgiven for thinking it's just a bit foggy. I guess what would help getting the message across here would be some kind of additional visual cue. Like a person in rain gear or with an umbrella fighting the weather … --El Grafo (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those kind words, El Grafo. I agree that a token person would have been nice, but most people here are wise enough to stay indoors in this kind of weather. :-) To paraphrase an old song: "Mad dogs and Commons photographers go out in the evening rain". --Cart (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Certainly good quality, but not FP for me. --Yann (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've thought about this for a long time, and I've come to the conclusion that it's legitimately an FP. It's a good composition in pouring rain, and if Monet thought it was worth making paintings of "effet neige", this is a photo with "effet pluie". Not that this is like Monet, but I think it is good enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx! I've got plenty of "effet neige" too. :-D I've always wondered why only clear weather (or with the occasional fog) is deemed worthy of photos. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember we featured a great photo by you of a railway crossing and line in frozen fog. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another one by me. I would love to see more "weater photos" from the rest of the world. Although it is understandable that there are so few, since the rest of the regulars here have much more expensive cameras than me and they have to be more careful. --Cart (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support A summer day can also be a dreary, rainy one, especially when, like the one in this image, it evokes Led Zeppelin's "Rain Song". Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Karelj (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diakonievene. Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. 31-05-2019. (d.j.b). 05.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2019 at 15:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # The Netherlands
Info Overgrown root ball of a fallen birch (Betula). The root ball resembles a bird. (A natural work of art?
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like this photo. Question: Are the highlights a bit bright? I have to ask, because I'm not sure I can trust my monitor on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Thanks for your question. I have corrected the highlights a little.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a tiny bit low on wow, but good quality as usual for your work. Overall, happy to support. Cmao20 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This shape evokes me an animal, with the profile of a head on the top-left corner, and some legs or wings behind. Kind of abstraction, also with the many reliefs of the vegetation around. However, this format seems a bit hazardous, and I think more balanced proportions like 16:9 or 2:1 would work better aesthetically -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 21:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloemen in een terracotta vaas., Albertus Jonas Brandt, Eelke Jelles Eelkema, 1810 - 1824 - Zoeken - Rijksmuseum.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2019 at 06:19:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Rijksmuseum, uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Yann (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have very few featured still life paintings, and I think this is one of the best. -- Yann (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. The quality is also very valuable. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine.--Peulle (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nomination, this is a lovely painting and very well reproduced. Cmao20 (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, others. I'm not clear on who photographed it, though. Was it the Rijksmuseum itself? That should be mentioned somewhere in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: It is mentioned in the description. See the source/photographer field. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Map of Europe, 1946 (25289557032).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2019 at 12:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by National Archives UK, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I think this is an absolutely fascinating map of the political order in Europe - made in that brief age of optimism after WWII but before the Iron Curtain began to take shape, when it appeared that peace and reconciliation were just as possible as the division and polarisation of the Cold War. The more you explore it, the more interesting details there are. Cmao20 (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. It's an excellent and very interesting map. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that "East Prussia" is on the map, despite that entity being absorbed by Russia and Poland respectively in 1945. So there is a factual error in this 1946 map; the disclaimer in the printing - that the information comes from 1938 - just isn't enough for me.--Peulle (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle There are several “errors” of that kind, for example the inclusion of the Free City of Danzig, which was incorporated into Poland as the city of Gdańsk after the war. However I do think that to complain about that is missing the point slightly, as in 1946 the post-war political formations of Europe were in flux, and no one really knew what a stable post-war political order would look like. Hence the mapmakers have decided simply to use the 1938 information, the last time anyone could have been certain what European political formations were. I think this has value in itself, showing the prevailing uncertainty in Europe even post-Potsdam Conference. Cmao20 (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's one way to see it. As far as I'm concerned, though, I don't think this map should ever have been published.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was a very irresponsible teaching material, but the fact that it was nevertheless published makes it a very interesting historical curiosity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Per Cmao--Booth sift 18:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prag, Nationalmuseum, Brunnen -- 2019 -- 6841.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 05:55:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Czech_Republic
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful idea --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmmmm very good. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me, althoug a large part of the image is of course out of focus --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it on the whole but I'm not sure it's FP for me. I am not sure it's sharp enough, and I find the composition a bit awkward with the crops at the sides. Cmao20 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt, extreme distortion, composition --Wilfredor (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creative -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I got to agree with Wilfredor here. -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems tilted, but it is apparently an optical illusion. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It feels like the focus point is too low resulting in a too blurry statue, but still a very nice view overall, FP to me. Not much you can do about the "distortion" in this kind of shot. In fact that distortion is what makes the image interesting to me. Poc o² 09:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creative composition* well executed. That kind of "distortion" (converging verticals) needs to be there in this kind of frog perspective shot. Same as these converging horizontals, just rotated by 90° … --El Grafo (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC) *By our standards. I'd bet that this kind of shot would be part of "composition 101" in any photography class[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredor. Daniel Case (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Banz Decke Abendmahl 3070545.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2019 at 21:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful work in very high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nadar - "Hermaphrodite" (Seventh Gallica image).jpg, not featured edit

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Nadar - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some context on this: w:Hermaphrodite_(Nadar), this is one in a series of photographs which are “probably the first medical photo-illustrations of a patient with intersex genitalia”, and a “milestone in the history of sexual medicine”. I can't vote now because I'm not familiar enough with this to judge the importance of this photograph and the superiority against the others of the series. Regarding the restoration, it's all too washed out for me. – Lucas 16:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: I believe (it's been a few days) the colours are original, and unchanged. The restoration removed blobs and damage. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, this is no doubt a historically important photo and also the best in the series IMO since there are no hands of a physician getting in the way of the subject. Still, even for such important photos I'd want a bit of artistic composition and perhaps better quality in the photo for an FP. This is the same position you get in a gynecologist's chair and there is nothing artistic about that position, only practicality and intrusion. --Cart (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality etc. Charles (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, it's a clinical photo, but it seems interesting and important enough to me to merit a feature. That said, if it does not get featured, it certainly merits VI designation in a suitable scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart--Booth sift 00:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, please provide a reason. Vote struck until then. – Lucas 07:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: Sorry about that. Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral 159 years old. Special archive in its kind. Used and useful. But not very glamorous -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sankt Georgen am Längsee Burg Hochosterwitz W-Ansicht 12092018 4586.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2019 at 13:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Castle Hochosterwitz, Sankt Veit, Carinthia, Austria. Note that there is another FP of this castle, but I think this is a sufficiently different composition to be featured as well. created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. It's very interesting to see the castle on the hill sort of miraculously springing up from the fields. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Johann Jaritz: Please check for dust spots, there is at least one, see note --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Uoaei1: The dustspots were being removed. Please, have a second look at the image. —- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Albans Choir 2, Hertfordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2019 at 18:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The choir of St Albans Cathedral from the Wallingford Screen steps in Hertfordshire, England. St Albans Cathedral is a Norman/Romanesque building constructed in the eleventh century, although it was heavily restored in the nineteenth century. It has the distinction of being the only cathedral in England also to function as an ordinary parish church. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×× Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stromboli Eruption.jpg (delist) edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2019 at 17:43:34

Info This was taken in 1980. The quality of images and photos have risen. Also, this image once again no longer meets our minimum resolution/size for jpg FP's. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Booth sift 17:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The quality is not that bad and I think the rarity of this photo makes up for the small size. --Cart (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think we should be seeking out historical (in terms of digital photography) small FPs to remove just due to their size. If there were a better, larger photo of this motif, you could nominate this photo for delist and replace, but you're not doing that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Rare photo--Booth sift 01:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crystal Cave Sequoia July 2017 004.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2019 at 03:22:03 (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea, but IMO the shapes are not distinct or interesting enough to work in B&W. --Cart (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support On balance, I like it. Cmao20 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart --Booth sift 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- Karelj (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:March on washington Aug 28 1963.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2019 at 01:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1960-1970
Info created by United States Information Agency - uploaded by Esemono - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Impressive historic photo. --Cayambe (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historic photo Taewangkorea (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. Great historical significance.--Peulle (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Good photo of an historically important event. Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Actually, I agree with Charles' point. Cmao20 (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose But it's not a great photo with feet and hand cut off. Charles (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles--Booth sift 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As been said just recently, this is not a classical portrait or still life photo. Perfectly fine as is, would even posit it works better because the cut parts add tension where there would be very little otherwise. -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose muuch agree Charles Seven Pandas (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition of the image is not really good even thought that the image has a great historical value! --Chmee2 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not perfect. --Gnosis (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't believe you folks who demand "perfect" compositions of historical events. Just amazing. From the file description: "In the Winter 2004, Vol. 36, No. 4 of the National Archives magazine, Prologue, named this image one of its top ten requested images[1]" -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is exactly what I have been asking myself this entire time. -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 22:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles. -- Karelj (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, historical value, but composition is far from the best we have. This one is better, although the quality is much lower. Hopefully a high resolution scan could be made. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Multi-coloured kukuri-zaru talismans at Kongoji Yasaka Kōshin-dō temple, Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2019 at 03:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 07:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A striking composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uitgeest, windmolen De Kat RM35853 IMG 9919 2019-06-17 15.56.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2019 at 22:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry
Info all by me -- Michielverbeek (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Nice reflection, but a bit unbalanced with the top blade too close to the top. The slightly off-center positioning of the windmill is also a bit disturbing; I feel like it should be either perfectly in the middle or clearly off-center. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The foreground could be cut, because the proportions now grant too much importance to the water, which is less interesting than the building itself~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Nice windmill -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some sky in the top, I have cut the bottom and I have centralized the mill --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely composed. Cmao20 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I imagine that you couldn't get the reflection in the middle of the bushes, otherwise very nice Poc o² 18:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dirtsc (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Autopista Taylor, Chicken, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 102.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2019 at 19:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_States
Info Never-ending Taylor Highway, Chicken, Alaska, USA. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 19:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An iconic view. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~but is it possible to correct the purple CA on the tree that sticks up above the hills on the left? Not a deal breaker, but I do find it noticeable.~~ Cmao20 (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cmao20: Done --Poc o² 15:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 22:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the prettiest sky in the distance, but oh, how the road goes ever on ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 22:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Noctilucent-clouds-msu-6817.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2019 at 05:40:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
Info created and uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 05:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A bit noisy, but that's probably inevitable in that light, and otherwise, very good and striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 50 shades of blue --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see you took a leaf out of my suggestion here Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan Poc o² 18:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not very sharp in the background, but VERY impressive --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would not be our first noctilucent cloud FP, as I pointed out yesterday, but its latticework pattern makes it too good to pass up. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It would be an oppose because the blues are extensively processed (and yes, the EXIF show that). But I compared with what we already have and that looks on par, so I guess it is representative of the reality... - Benh (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 05:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:00001 2.51e101 bis 00050 4.47e086 27062019 017.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2019 at 11:24:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info A spiral flowing to the image center. The edges of the spiral contain spirals, too. Coordinates in the description. created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever the outcome of this nom, the file name needs to be changed to something that better describes the subject in the photo. This should be done after the nom is closed since it will mess up the code for the nom. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I will consider it --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd support this, but I would like to know how to make it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Is this something you put some numbers into a program and the computer churns it out in a few seconds, or is it a big job to make?--Peulle (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, kind of. The image is created with a fractal generating program called Kalles Fraktaler 2+. In the Metadata-Information you can get all the information to recreate this fractal detail shown in the image above. The fractal parameters can be varied, depending on the fractal formula. In my opinion, this image shows self-similarity and the infinity of fractal quite well, so I decided to nominate it here. How big the job is depends on what topic in fractal theory you want to focus :). Regards, --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard for me to judge the photo as I don't understand much what it displays. Can you please tell us more about the photo? Like eg. why is it green? Does it have any significance? Did you choose the colours or were they chosen by the software? I'd simply like to know what makes this picture special and distinguish it from other pictures at the same categories. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The colors are generated by a random seed number. The composition of the colors is generated like that, so the contour is clear and sharp. The special in the image is in my opinion a phenomenom showing a spiral which is containing an infinite amount of another spirals at the edges. Also the self-similarity is quite well visible, because the "antennas" get smaller next to each other. Because of these circumstances, zooming can lead to see similar structures. These reasons show IMO well known phenomenoms of fractals in one image. The colors indicate the number of iterations. More iterations curse to a higher detailed fractal. The area, that an iteration affect to the fractal, is colored in another color than the following iteration. For asthetic reasons, the color transitions are smooth. In this case, you can see the transition from black to green/yellow. The black area is a result of a lower iteration number. It is rougher and less detailed than the yellow/green colored area. The colors show arbitrary sizes. By zooming, the colors change because of the change of iterations. The dark area is the area of the fractal. I hope, this description, helps, regards, --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I probably won't vote on this image as is, but I don't like the close crops on the top and bottom, as they have the effect of creating tension to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Borretsch IMG 5069.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 09:01:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants##Order_:_Boraginales
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop is too tight. Charles (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely color and detail, but per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sharp and interesting, but I do feel like there should be a lot more space at the bottom. Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Fischer.H (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eselsdistel IMG 7947.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2019 at 08:29:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Missing sharpness, noise on background. Location not provided either. --A.Savin 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usually I am quite critical of lack of sharpness, but I don't really see it here, it's not perfect but seems adequate. There is some noise, but as always I much prefer noise to the loss of texture that comes with too much noise reduction, and I don't find it distracting in this image. Location would be nice, but overall FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is unbalanced with the insect small and having little definition. Charles (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. I'd like to see something more extraordinary for FP like a better quality / special light / interesting insect or a less common flower species. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - DoF doesn't cover enough of the flower. We have much sharper flower-and-insect photos than this as FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Fischer.H (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museummolen De Wachter (Zuidlaren) 22-06-2019. (actm.) 14.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2019 at 15:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Netherlands Pulley, part of the De Wachter museum mill.
Info Museummolen De Wachter (Zuidlaren) Pulley for winch cable of the cross wheel. A nice weathered, somewhat rusty pulley. part of a mill built in 1851.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support how cart-esque! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting close-up but harsh light. The front side is almost black and the shadows very strong. While Cart's hook was crispy sharp and had a decent light, this pulley suffers from an agressive midday sun resulting in a lack of details on much of its surface. The composition with these intrusive shadows also makes the nomination quite unexceptional in my view. I think your door handle was much better -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Basile.--Ermell (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unfortunately I too agree with Basile, such hardware require a bit more wrt light and technical quality to make it an FP. --Cart (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unfortunately per Basile and Cart, it's interesting but the light and composition are maybe not quite as good as they could be. Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile, Cart, and Cmao20.--Vulp here 15:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babirusa berkelahi.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2019 at 13:10:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Meldy Tamenge - uploaded by Meldy Tamenge - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good action shot, but not FP quality. The bottom half of the frame seems oddly grey, as if the picture has been taken through a window. The resolution is not very high, and the crop on the right is very tight. Cmao20 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's a great action shot so I gave it a go at a little editing. There is now another version of this if you want to add it as an 'Alternative' in the nom. It's up to you. An English description would be great though. --Cart (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Cart's version, with the tilt fixed and the top cropped, might make a good nominee. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seriously tilted, and I don't think this is fixable. Also underexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile --Booth sift 03:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Vulp here 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 20:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Founder's Hall gate of Higashi-Honganji Temple, with water reflection, Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2019 at 05:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Stunning place but the compo with the lotus sculpture blocking the entrance to the building and the sightlines is not working for me. It's a bit like putting a cake on a cake. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like cake on cakes, pace Cart ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall very good. I don't mind the lotus sculpture, and in any case I think it would probably be quite hard to capture the building from a good angle without it. Move to the other side of the water in front of the sculpture and it might be difficult to get the whole building in the frame - plus of course you'd miss out on the nice reflection. Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Building reflects very nicely in the water. Note: the roof line does not seem completely horizontal.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice reflection. I find the cut-off blue sign on the right just a little bit disturbing, but good otherwise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see a photo from Japan and the reflection is well done --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is a bit boring but POV and subject are nice Poc o² 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pergola - Plaza de España - Tazacorte 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2019 at 07:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. Have we seen a photo like this by you at FPC before, or am I just remembering this photo from QIC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Yes, it was promoted to QI June 14, 2019. --Llez (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good idea and good work, Llez. Please just straighten the horizon and I'm happy to support :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Llez (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need to improve the CA removal, at the border left it is too much correction, on the right there are visible green halos Poc o² 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco is right about the green halos, but not noticeable at lower than full-size. Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'd be nice to work on halos but for me it's already good. I can see myself sitting there on the cold floor on a bright day! --Podzemnik (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @ Poco²: Halos and CAs removed --Llez (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Support Poc o² 10:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Cart (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Isiwal (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but my eyes are bugged with the foreground. I think it would be better to cut both sides to get rid of this blurry branch at the right, looking like a hanging inner tube -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I considered it too, but then I would have cut the lamp in an unfortunate way. So I didn't. --Llez (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rafflesia Arnoldii Batang Palupuah Indonesia.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2019 at 13:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Maizal Chaniago - uploaded by Maizal Chaniago - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This file needs renaming, whatever the outcome of this. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I've made the request Mimihitam (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Cart (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks rather heavily oversaturated and this is confirmed when checking the exif. Could you please dial it down to more natural levels. It also need better categorization, see COM:Categories. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Isn't this the flower that's famous for smelling really bad? Interesting photo. That said, I don't think the quality is quite at FP levels, as the plant itself doesn't seem in focus to me. Cmao20 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharpness, distortion and tight crop. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, Cmao20, it is known for smelling like rotten flesh, and it's a huge flower - it can be over 100 cm in diameter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: What is your reasoning behind your oppose? --Booth sift 03:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, same reasoning as everyone else - not sharp enough for its size, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with the others --Booth sift 03:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, this is not so far from FP: light and composition (the plant in itself natural environment) are good. If only sharpness could be improved. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 20:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nazca Lines, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 14:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

The "Whale"
The "Monkey"
The "Condor"
The "Dog"
The "Hands"
The "Spiral"
The "Heron"
The "Tree"

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info I recently came across these excellent images of the Nazca Lines, a set of huge geoglyphs carved into the Nazca Desert in Peru, taken by Poco a poco from an aeroplane. They are all high-resolution, sharp, and, especially considering the technical challenges of shooting from the air through a window, very good quality - indeed, I can find no better images of the Nazca Lines, certainly none available under a Creative Commons license, on the internet. The first three images are already featured (although Poco has made a few improvements to them) and are included for completeness, but the other images are equal in quality to the ones already promoted, and thus in my opinion deserve equally to be featured. I appreciate there may be a question-mark over whether the scope of this set nomination is sufficiently defined to be featured, since there are several dozen Nazca geoglyphs, but please do consider that the set includes all the most famous geoglyphs and the ones that are most frequently used to illustrate the site; many of the ones that Poco has not photographed are merely straight lines or geometric shapes and would probably have insufficient 'wow' to be FP anyway. See what you think, anyway - I think this is a high-quality collection of images that have immense wow and are also very valuable to the project. Created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you can include files that are FPs already in the nom, set or not, it will totally mess with the FP system and all the logs. Please remove them from the set. As for the rest, I don't see this as in scope for a set nom. It is a bit like nominating "some of the most famous UNESCO heritage sites in Europe". I think you have to nominate them one by one. These big wholesale noms are not what the Set option was intended for. Similar noms: MAV I and MAV Canidae --Cart (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, no problem; I didn't know it would mess with the codes, the ones that are already FP are gone now. As for your other objection, I did think this criticism might be offered - if you look on Poco's talk page I discussed it with him and came to the conclusion to go ahead anyway and see what happens. Ultimately the way I see it is that a) this set includes virtually all the most famous Nazca Lines, and the overwhelming majority of the rest are merely simple lines and shapes, and b) The images are all of very strong quality and I suspect they would all pass if nominated one by one - thus, since they are all images of the same phenomenon, it would be much simpler to promote them as a set rather than take up the community's time with the bureaucratic task of making people vote on every single one. But as I say, I understand your criticism and respect that point of view. We'll see what others think, if the set idea gets slated I'll nominate some individually. Cmao20 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll see what others say. Wrt taking up the community's time, voters still have to examine every one of these individually in a part of a set and as a set compare them with each other to see if the quality is the same across all of it, so it will actually take more time for the rest of us in the long run. Some voters may even be reluctant to do such a big job all at once. The only one "saving time" will be you since you don't have to create so many nominations. --Cart (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cart. Where are :

For a set, the guidelines say "Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats". Similarly we have here a few Nazca lines. There are also some technical problems, so please nominate them separately -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of non-included figures is not a solid argument to me. Of course that the set here does not contain all Nazca Lines. There are hundreds of them, and some of them are still to be discovered. In your list I haven't found any well known lines, in fact, I never heard about some of them, and I read a bit about the topic before and after my trip. Btw the first on in your list is also mine and on Commons, no problem to add it to the set :) unfortunately the Daily Star Newspaper does not seem to understand our licenses :( If you let me know where those technical issues are, I can try to fix them. Poc o² 13:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how sets work. "A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object." Do these 8 images show all possible variations of the Nazca lines ? No. There are more than 20 important here, and yes more aside also. This is just a big bunch of pictures on the same subject, not a proper set. I noticed technical issues on at least two of them above. However this is not the moment to review each of them individually, sorry. Now I've spent enough time on this nomination already. This is like nominating 8 pictures of the best temples of a big site like Angkor Wat, or 8 canidae skeletons. It doesn't make a whole -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you Cmao20 for going ahead with our little project ;) Poc o² 19:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are these all the Nazca Lines, or are there more of them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are. The Wikipedia page is missing many important ones -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on that basis, regardless of the quality of the individual photos (which would take me a lot of time to look at all of them). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not as a set -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a set. Please separately nominate the images you think have wow and meet FP. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --A.Savin 15:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination OK, no problem. It seems that the community has more-or-less decided this isn't a valid scope for a set. Will nominate some individually. Cmao20 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Havana - Cuba - 0885.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2019 at 15:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created & uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A tad noisy but color, compo and ambience are great. --Cart (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Wilfredor (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So good. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fresh -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very documentary. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Red-billed gull, Red Zone, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2019 at 20:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. We already have this FP + a portrait of the same species but I think that my nominated photo is distinctive enough to be nominated + better quality than the linked FP. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to the bird --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avahi4 perspective noir.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2019 at 05:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 05:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clear and well-placed in the frame. Also useful: We can really see the close relationship between lemurs and people by looking at those teeth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A happy-looking skull! Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember very well this little skull which is fascinating by the enormous size of the orbits ... and yet, it looks like us. It is not a coincidence. Thank you all, and especially Booth, for this appointment.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 05:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rosy ermine moth (Trosia nigropunctigera).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2019 at 10.33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info A small moth, around 2cm long. This one lives in the Mount Totumas cloud forest, Panama, at 1900m above sea level. A focus-stacked image. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10.33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Charles (talk) 10.33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful moth per Podzemnik. Reminds me of strawberry shortcake with chocolate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality. Looks like a stuffed toy at full size :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dirtsc (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful composition, and soft attractive lighting. I wish I could spot wildlife like that... (and photograph them this nicely) - Benh (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well that's just an adorable moth. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parc Güell HDR.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 12:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting picture and decent quality, but the top of the tower is blown out, and I find too much of the rest of the image to be in shadow. In addition, the EXIF data appears to have gone missing (maybe as a consequence of your tone-mapping software?). Cmao20 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No WOW and Trees spoils, Sorry for the oppose vote -- Eatcha (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark shadows don't add anything to the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool picture I guess but the composition is not the best nor is anything about the picture "WOW" inspiring etc. --Fluffy89502 ~ talk 19:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The foreground is pretty obnoxious too imo. --Fluffy89502 ~ talk 19:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose All the reasons given and so many more ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate what "so many more" is, so I can improve those in the future? --Domob (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback! --Domob (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pieris brassicae auf Centaurea jacea 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2019 at 05:57:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Pieridae_(Whites_and_Sulphurs)
Info Large white (Pieris brassicae) on a brown knapweed (Centaurea jacea) flower. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very pleasant --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wing edges are blurred. Charles (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles is right, but still, a solid FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, and a rare composition (here) with a butterfly and a flower. Yes we have a lot of butterflies, and a lot of flowers, but not often both together. The animal seems a bit overexposed however, and the highlights of the wings too bright. A closer frame would also improve in my opinion. But overall a very pleasant image -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't stand out amongst the heaps of similar pictures we have. - Benh (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nao Victoria moored in Sète 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2019 at 10:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I'd like to know more about that concrete(?) slab in the middle of the water. Is that a temporary structure? Etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge from which I take the picture is a swing bridge, that concrete slab serves as stop and fix when the bridge is in open position. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Great moving diagram in the linked article! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 18:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The ship and the light are fantastic but that concrete slab is unfortunately stealing all the attention and it doesn't look like it could be cropped out. --Cart (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the concrete slab kills it for me. --Gnosis (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, and I like the light. Cmao20 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light and the mood are exceptionaly good but the concrete slab kills it for me, sorry. I understand that it wasn't possible to crop or miss so you just incorporated it into the composition but I don't find it interesting enough... Its monotonous nature stands out especially on the background of the boat and the old buildings. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral that concrete slab is really bugging me. - Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose due to the concrete slab. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral mainly commenting to say it's a great shot, but that slab... can you just use the clone stamp on the whole foreground? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport

File:Tofana di Rozes parete sud Dolomiti Ampezzo.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 11:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely excellent - sharp, high-resolution, beautiful and nicely composed. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Podzemnik (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty image but that shadow in the middle does tick me off a little bit. --Fluffy89502 ~ talk 01:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harris River bank bedding1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2019 at 03:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada
Info: all by me -- СССР (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Unimpressive as a thumbnail, but at full-page size, I like the lines in the granite very much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek.--Ermell (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me either, a bit flat and not interesting enough. And it's sand, not granite. --Cart (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The colors look just like granite, and it's packed together. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow for me--Booth sift 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but it doesn't do a lot for me, at full-size or otherwise. It's good quality though, and surely a useful shot in depicting a geological phenomenon. Cmao20 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart, who has taken many much more interesting pictures of similar granite formations around her, and so she should know. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, no wow for me.--Vulp here 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --СССР (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lago de las Reflexiones, Palmer, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 12-19 PAN.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2019 at 20:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_States
Info Reflections Lake, Palmer, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm having a feeling of deja vu. Didn't we feature a very similar photo that was of another river or lake in Alaska or perhaps Yukon? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: I believe you mean this nom, this location is about 350 miles further to the West --Poc o² 21:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - You're right, and when I see them next to each other, they look like variations on a theme, different enough to both be featured. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WB looks a bit yellow to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, KoH, I've cooled it a bit --Poc o² 08:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't really like this light. --Peulle (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps with a beautiful sky, reflecting in the water -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Lovely image, overall, although some parts in the centre of the panorama are not as sharp as they could be. Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle--Booth sift 23:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long aspect ratio, and boring overall (it needn't be that long to mostly repeat itself, but that's just me). "Looks" also tilted (even if it may not be the case). - Benh (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support that shit sticking out of the water on the bottom left of the image is annoying. Fluffy89502 ~ talk

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ronald McNair, Guion Bluford, and Fred Gregory (S79-36529, restoration).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 17:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by NASA, restored and uploaded by Coffeeandcrumbs, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly historically significant. -- Yann (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A more relaxed and informal photograph than the majority of posed NASA astronaut photos. Ronald McNair (on the left) sadly passed away during the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986. Cmao20 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question If this is historically significant then shouldn't this also be in that category too? --Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think FPs are in one category only. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not just historically important; also a really good photo, and I'm pretty sure I'd vote for it purely on that basis even if on no other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fluffy89502 ~ talk
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Bibiji's masjid Jhulta minar Gomtipur Ahmedabad 09.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 08:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Saket.lakhia - uploaded by Saket.lakhia - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Saket.lakhia}}|]] -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Ahmed Shah's Tomb (Badshah no hajiro) 06.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 07:58:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Saket.lakhia - uploaded by Saket.lakhia - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Saket.lakhia}}|]] -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibiji's masjid Jhulta minar Gomtipur Ahmedabad 07.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 07:56:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Saket.lakhia - uploaded by Saket.lakhia - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Saket.lakhia}}|]] -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rani no hajiro (Tombs of Queens of Ahmed Shah) 02.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 07:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Saket.lakhia - uploaded by Saket.lakhia - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Saket.lakhia}}|]] -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibiji's masjid Jhulta minar Gomtipur Ahmedabad 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 07:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Saket.lakhia - uploaded by Saket.lakhia - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Saket.lakhia}}|]] -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not a the quality is far below our standards-- Basile Morin (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibiji's masjid Jhulta minar Gomtipur Ahmedabad 11.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 07:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by saket.lakhia - uploaded by saket.lakhia - nominated by [[User:{{subst:saket.lakhia}}|]] -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not a the quality is far below our standards-- Basile Morin (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:NASA astronaut Leland D. Melvin with his dogs Jake and Scout.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2019 at 00:48:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Robert Markowitz/NASA - Hi-res uploaded by User:Banjo - nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original picture but quite low resolution in 2019 for such a professional work -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can see a tiny amount of unsharpness on his face. The low resolution itself is not necessarily a disqualifying factor, but it does mean that we need to scrutinize pixel-level sharpness very carefully. The blur would not be acceptable on a 24 MP image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very small, but resolution above 2MB. However, not sharp enough. --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above due to the small size and the sharpness of the image. --Booth sift 18:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. I will try to get the original from NASA. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Litchi chinensis190714mx.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2019 at 00:31:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I'm missing wow, this is a too basic and unimaginative focus stack studio shot with soft lighting a lot of online shops are using for their products when they don't care to do something original. Composition is lackluster and the whole presentation of stacking them doesn't do it for me as there's not one berry visible with good separation from others and the dark shadows hide detail. The background needs to be edited better, it should at least be pure white (to be more useful and clean) and not grey with a noticeable blue tint (RGB values: 237, 240, 245). Also there's dirt and hairs scattered on the surface, two distracting reflection-like shapes on two sides, which look weird with this otherwise matte surface, and finally some digital brush strokes/cloning strokes on the bottom. – Lucas 06:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is too ordinary for me. --Booth sift 18:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A useful picture, but Lucas has accurately assessed its flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination thanks for your review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmontuy (talk • contribs)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montreal Skyline from Mont Royal golden hour.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2019 at 18:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info Golden hour version and highest-resolution. All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need choose one of these, unless you want to nominate a set. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this one --Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the others? Did you withdraw them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nom with the alt was withtdrawn. --Cart (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A lot of the architecture in the view is nondescript, but the photo is certainly impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The golden-hour light gives the skyline a bit of character. It is good to see that some of the buildings under construction during Wikimania 2017, in this image most notably the YUL Condos, have been finished. I also like that you can see Lyon Mountain just to the right of the CIBC Tower ... a good criterion for a clear day in Montreal. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm puzzled you nominated this and withdrew File:Montreal Skyline from Mont Royal.jpg. There's a bit of size difference but not much actual extra detail and since most of this image is in shade, the other one often shows more detail simply because the sun is shining in the windows and on the walls. I like the composition of the other one, which is similar to Poco's File:Vista de Montreal desde el Monte Royal, Canadá, 2017-08-12, DD 70-74 PAN.jpg. The composition is nicely framed with the trees and offers extra width with the water on both sides. While Poco's has an interesting sky, the city itself is entirely in shade, whereas your File:Montreal Skyline from Mont Royal.jpg has an ordinary blue sky but the city glows with daylight. This "golden hour" nominee only really has the golden light in a small area, which might have worked if that area was worth highlighting, but it isn't any more special than elsewhere. (Btw why do both your photos have the same date-time if they can't be taken at the same time). Both your images suffer from wonky verticals (draw a line up the side of the tall buildings and the deviation is obvious). I suggest adding vertical control points to the tall buildings right across the panorama to ensure they are straight and help keep the horizon level. I see in the previous nomination there was a discussion about resolution & lighting and Poco seemed to come away with the idea that resolution alone was sufficient to nominate new FPs. Resolution doesn't rescue a dull photo. But I disagree with Poco that the lighting in File:Montreal Skyline from Mont Royal.jpg is worse than his: only the sky rescues the earlier image, since the city is in shadow with dull light. I'd support File:Montreal Skyline from Mont Royal.jpg with fixed verticals. However, what I'd really like to see is not just another technical improvement over the existing daylight photos, but an image that makes me go wow without caring about resolution. Nobody has surpassed Diliff's File:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg. Shot at just the right time, twilight, to provide a mix of daylight and artificial light, and with great weather. -- Colin (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think that Colin is right, this image does not have anything special and does not add anything, despite being of a huge size and better than the FP of Poco, according to Colin, I think that it should not be FP since it lacks the wow factor or the correct lighting. I am very grateful to those who supported the image, I will try to make a better photo next year. --Wilfredor (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black sand beach north of Kaikoura, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2019 at 05:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's a black sand beach north of Kaikoura, Canterbury, New Zealand. I like how the driftwood provides - a bit chaotic - leading line to the hills and further to the mountains. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Just not feeling it, sorry. I think it has to do with the fact that none of the leading lines are particularly prominent; the shoreline is too far away, and the dead branches too small and scattered, to make an impact. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm sorry to say, I'm with King of Hearts here. --Cart (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH, too Poc o² 18:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the way the driftwood and dusk combine to create a spent, autumnal mood. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice mood but not very special. Neither the sand nor the background bring something extraordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Would support if the saturation was just slightly (like very very slightly) more on the higher side. Just seems too dull to me. Fluffy89502 ~ talk

@Fluffy89502 You are probably right, it is a bit dull. I increased the saturation a tiny bit together with the contrast. Like very very slightly :) --Podzemnik (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks 100 times better now (especially the sand, it looked almost like a dull version of raw asphalt) :) --Fluffy89502 ~ talk

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oculus (41323p).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 22:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive but there are some stitching errors. I put a note. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't have much experience with such fixes, but will work on it tonight. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please fix them. Stitching pictures imply such technical skills. Thanks, Podzemnik -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: I've uploaded a new version. Could you let me know what you think? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Pretty good work. Thank you! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending the fixing of the stitching issues noted by Podzemnik. Remind us: Is there another FP of the oculus? I thought there was. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is. --A.Savin 20:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The reason I didn't nominate this when I took it is because it was, coincidentally, just a week or two after the other nomination. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing, but yes, you can probably fix the (many) stitch errors. - Benh (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture of the Oculus that works without showing the glass spine in the roof. Excellent! Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive architecture, and impressive panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orchiedeenlüte 2019-05-21 12-03-31 (C)-PSD.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 21:27:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Interior of an orchid blossom. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nature is creative :-) Agree with Rorschach :-) Or is it a tiger flying ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Typo in filename ;-) -- -donald- (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was a really arty, stylized rendition of a pelvis. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely. O'keeffesque, maybe. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Maybe very artistic. But the blurry parts at the top of the photo don't work for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Common periwinkles in Gullmarn fjord.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 18:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Gastropoda
Info A small impromptu shell collection, only these are alive. :-) All by me, -- Cart (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the shadows are too much for me. --A.Savin 21:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite interesting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special in my view. Ordinary picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, thanks guys, I wanted to try it at least. --Cart (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cynocephalus Perspective.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 06:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 06:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 06:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My first thought was "Ugh! Another skull!" But it's quite impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As usual for these images by Archaeodontosaurus. Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support My grandma, what big teeth you have! Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Famberhorst (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is not usual to make this image jaw open. Initially the first image was closed. The image was redone on the request of the curator who wanted us to see the dental formula. The final image has an unexpected jovial side. Thank you all and Boothsift for this appointment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:London - James Smith and Sons - 1840.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 18:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The DoF is too short, making most of the canes out of focus, and the composition could be better -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't appeal to me --Booth sift 18:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but unfortunately per Basile. Cmao20 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the composition, but I agree that the DoF is too short for this to be a great picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fruit + Veggie Toast (43807243320).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2019 at 16:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Ella Olsson - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very bright, isn't it? --Cart (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar technical problems as in the recent Hummus nomination, though the arrangement is still good. --A.Savin 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a little bright, I agree, but I still like it on the whole, it's a nice composition and good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin --Booth sift 18:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top down view does not work for me. Try a different perspective with focus stacking, and you have my vote. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo and compo are excellent and modern, but I don't like the over-the-top brightness. The blown areas are more pronounced here. --Cart (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's pretty high-key, but I don't see any actual overexposure. Great example of food photography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Yann (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me. I actually like the "bright sunlight shining though the window on the right" ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart; the light is really harsh in some spots. It may not be blown exactly but it doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - if I go to full size and move around it, I like it much better. As a whole, while the color an idea are lovely I just can't get past the harsh light, which hurts a little to look at. The good news is if someone wanted to reshoot this, they get another lovely lunch out of the deal. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Highlights are too bright for my taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 07:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stewartia rostrata. 21-06-2019. (d.j.b). 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 16:58:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Stewartia rostrata #Family Theaceae.
Info Beautiful delicate flower of Stewartia rostrata. An unusual shrub or small tree.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and perfect clear green background. Cmao20 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Fischer.H (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done getting the flower looking white but not blown, it's very hard. --Cart (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Church of St Eustace, Chapel of the Virgin Mary, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 22:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The Chapel of the Virgin in the Church of St Eustache, Paris, France. The Church of St Eustache is a sixteenth-century Gothic church, and one of the largest churches in France not to have cathedral status. The chapel was built in 1640 and restored in 1804, when it was consecrated by Pope Pius VII. The three paintings visible, depicting the Virgin Mary, are by Thomas Couture, who later mentored Édouard Manet. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need a masive nomination set of all Diliff pictures --Wilfredor (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just Diliff. --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like oil painting. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ellis Island hospital (01897).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 23:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Ellis Island was the busiest immigration station in the US in the early 20th century. A hospital operated there for about 25 years until 1930. It's been closed since then. A few years ago the artist JR took photos of patients from the archives and installed them as murals around the hospital grounds. This is one of those images. I found this one, on a broken window in a dark hallway, to be particularly effective. Created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Strong chromatic aberration --Wilfredor (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I've taken a couple passes to address CA. Not sure where to go from here. If there are specific areas could you annotate? I must be blind to it at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good composition, the combination of transparent and opaque areas in the window is striking. I have seen much stronger CAs in some FPCs, so I would like them to be removed from this image, but support it already as it is. --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting superposition - Benh (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually very wowed :) - Benh (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've removed most of the remaining CA for you. In some cases, like this, you have to do it manually in PS with color substitution tool. Please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm just as wowed as Benh with this. --Cart (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot, well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual view. --A.Savin 15:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Isiwal (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely fascinating - this one is a really nice shot. Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So is this an area of Ellis Island the public is allowed into? Or was this a little urbex thing? Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Starting a few years ago, to raise money for preservation, they started running a limited number of "hard-hat tours" which take you through parts of some of the buildings, other parts of which are in really bad shape. Surprisingly, these murals weren't a big part of the tour -- in fact I kind of had to do a little exploration while on the tour, wandering off and catching back up a few times, in order to see a couple of them. :) They're really quite striking (can see a few others here -- I've considered giving this other one a try at FPC, since I found the location of the mural behind this cage-like porch enclosure poignant, but the limited palette and the way the screen obscures the actual mural stopped me). I'm quite sure I didn't see them all. It makes for a very curious venue for an internationally famous artist like JR. Maybe there are other events that focus on them, but I didn't see anything about that. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Copyright is all good I guess, right? :) --Podzemnik (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the one worry I have. Are there restrictions on the use of the underlying artworks? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The information I have: (a) the hospital was run by the federal government, so it's likely photos in the archive will be in the public domain in that way; (b) Save Ellis Island, which runs the tours and organizes preservation of the site, says "archival photos taken in and around the hospital, 100 or so years ago", which further suggests public domain; (c) New York Times includes "JR’s vision — to use Ellis Island photos in the public domain to re-enact history".Operating on the assumption they're in the public domain, I don't think that JR would be able to claim a new copyright for printing and pasting the photos, even if they're in unusual places. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fruit + Veggie Toast (43807243320).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2019 at 16:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Ella Olsson - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very bright, isn't it? --Cart (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar technical problems as in the recent Hummus nomination, though the arrangement is still good. --A.Savin 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a little bright, I agree, but I still like it on the whole, it's a nice composition and good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin --Booth sift 18:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top down view does not work for me. Try a different perspective with focus stacking, and you have my vote. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo and compo are excellent and modern, but I don't like the over-the-top brightness. The blown areas are more pronounced here. --Cart (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's pretty high-key, but I don't see any actual overexposure. Great example of food photography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Yann (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me. I actually like the "bright sunlight shining though the window on the right" ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart; the light is really harsh in some spots. It may not be blown exactly but it doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - if I go to full size and move around it, I like it much better. As a whole, while the color an idea are lovely I just can't get past the harsh light, which hurts a little to look at. The good news is if someone wanted to reshoot this, they get another lovely lunch out of the deal. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Highlights are too bright for my taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 07:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedestrian road with pavements and paper umbrellas, Higashiyama-ku, Kyoto, Japan, early morning.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2019 at 05:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Japan
Info The light is much better than in the previous nomination. That was 5:40am. Created - uploaded- nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some subtle magic in this photo. --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this light and with the stark emptiness of the place, I can forgive both the construction site and the Starbucks sign. :-) Light is everything. --Cart (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart --Isiwal (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This reminds me of the beginning of the movie "Spirited Away" --Wilfredor (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful movie, I watched several times with kids -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is beautiful.--Vulp here 11:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Aristeas and Wilfredor. Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have a "thing" for empty streets these days so big yes from me. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works with the clouds because it's Japan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fruit + Veggie Toast (43807243320).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2019 at 16:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Ella Olsson - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very bright, isn't it? --Cart (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar technical problems as in the recent Hummus nomination, though the arrangement is still good. --A.Savin 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a little bright, I agree, but I still like it on the whole, it's a nice composition and good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin --Booth sift 18:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top down view does not work for me. Try a different perspective with focus stacking, and you have my vote. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo and compo are excellent and modern, but I don't like the over-the-top brightness. The blown areas are more pronounced here. --Cart (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's pretty high-key, but I don't see any actual overexposure. Great example of food photography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Yann (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me. I actually like the "bright sunlight shining though the window on the right" ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart; the light is really harsh in some spots. It may not be blown exactly but it doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - if I go to full size and move around it, I like it much better. As a whole, while the color an idea are lovely I just can't get past the harsh light, which hurts a little to look at. The good news is if someone wanted to reshoot this, they get another lovely lunch out of the deal. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Highlights are too bright for my taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 07:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirov Oblast Zuevka railway station asv2019-05 img2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2019 at 12:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info Historical Soviet FD steam locomotive as a monument at Zuyevka, Kirov Oblast railway station of the Trans-Siberian Railway ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pleasant composition, and I like the contrast of the modern train in the background with this pretty old locomotive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit unbalanced (too far to the right), and the car behind is distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Поддержка Мне єто нравится! "Папа, какой локомотив єто?" "Сын, вот наш Советский локомотив!!" Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
паровоз ;-) --A.Savin 13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. --Ermell (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The light looks quite flat, and the image a bit overexposed. Can you lower the shadows to cope with this? --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uoaei: Done, hopefully it's what you desired. --A.Savin 13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support + a bit per Uoaei1. --Cart (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mainly because I find the subject interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fluffy89502 ~ talk 01:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bees Collecting Pollen 2004-08-14.jpg, delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2019 at 17:40:52

Info First, this image was taken back in 2004 and nominated in 2005. The quality is no longer up to date and the image size/resolution is below the minimum requirements for jpg FP's. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Booth sift 17:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I think it looks very nice, but since we have quite a collection of bee FPs, I don't think this one would reach FP status if it had been nominated today.--Peulle (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unfortunately per nom, I'm sure it was excellent at the time and it's still interesting and valuable today, but sadly not FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Eatcha (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Gnosis (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist .--Vulp here 14:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist wow look at all that background noise. -Fluffy89502 ~ talk

Result: 11 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Boothsift 00:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Líneas de Nazca, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 55.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2019 at 21:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Aerial view of the "Condor", one of the geoglyphs of the Nazca Lines. Nominated per discussion here in the now-closed and archived set nomination. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure and thank you, Cmao20, Poc o² 07:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Btw. the first person who says this was made by aliens, I will travel to their place of residence and slap them. ;) --Peulle (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support My first impression was that it was fairly "touristy" shot. But then I Googled and Flickered and was very surprised to see so few pictures... let alone high resolution ones. I also think the lighting is very fortunate, coming from the sides, just enough to perfectly emphasize the lines. - Benh (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Benh. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Glaciar Lamplugh, Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 129-133 PAN.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 08:06:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Safari Endeavour vessel (232 feet (71 m) long and with up to 88 guests + 37 crew members) in front of the Lamplugh Glacier, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 08:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Question though, is the far shoreline on the left going naturally that way or is it leaning down because of the pano projection? -- KennyOMG (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, that was not right, there was a tilt overall, I've corrected it. Thank you. Poc o² 14:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support now when corrected. --Cart (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of my favourites from your Alaska set. The mood is totally glacier-like, the boat provides a great scale and I also like the angle from it was taken - that it's not from a boat but from a higher point. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all you say, Podzemnik, apart from the last point. I was indeed on the deck of a big cruise ship Poc o² 10:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Poco Hmmm totally looks like it was higher! :) --Podzemnik (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, high quality --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:High quality skull.stl, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 13:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by DrCoretti - uploaded by DrCoretti - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we have a more appropriate category for this 3D interactive Skull ? -- Eatcha (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting to zoom and rotate to explore the details -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending a suitable recategorization per Basile, as this isn't animated but movable by the viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to support, but it seems the software used to properly view these doesn't work for me in either Chrome or Firefox. Nobody else having trouble? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't have trouble in Chrome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionJavaScript enabled ? -- Eatcha (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If I wait long enough, it seems like the viewer loads, but then when I start to click to move, as soon as I let go it leaves the viewer again. Same behavior in both browsers. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rhododendrites, add blockers, if enabled try whitelisting commons ? What OS ? I tested the page on Windows10,8.1,Catalina,Mojave and Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS, most probably related to browser. What's the version of your Chromium browser? I will try to replicate the bug here on my Computer. If you are on PC try using phone and vice-versa. -- Eatcha (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 15:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ISS 2016.stl, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 13:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by Johnson Space Center Integrated Graphics, Operations, and Analysis Laboratory (IGOAL) - uploaded by Torana - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality.--Peulle (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has a lot of movement on the panels when you zoom in or out. Is that intentional? Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: , software ?? -- Eatcha (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (2) - avec lumière.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 06:26:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For some strange reason, this works. --Cart (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dirtsc (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart, unusual but successful. Cmao20 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this. Great idea Gzen92! --Podzemnik (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The prominent fence is a no go to me. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh sorry--Booth sift 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fence is not as big issue as is the overall lack of quality. Sorry --A.Savin 00:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Quality is fine to me for a blue hour shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a blue hour shot Nothing difficult with getting a sharp very high resolution of this castle at blue hour with a tripod. This place in particular doesn't even seem crowded, making the shot even easier to get right. - Benh (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about "The upper part is a little soft, but the overall effect is pleasant to me." It doesn't look like I'm wildly in the minority in judging the photo as a whole to deserve a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that's nothing to do with blue hour. - Benh (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not have much time for the settings : photo before at 22:01:37 without light, this photo at 22:02:02 and photo after at 22:02:56 with other bleu light. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose that fence ruins it for me otherwise its a good picture. --Fluffy89502 ~ talk

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sphinx moth (Adhemarius donysa) male.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 05:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created and uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Less sharp than I would like, but this is one of the hardships of photographing insects in the wild. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support thank you. Charles (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionally Support, but I'd like to know how big this moth is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The wings are around 55-61 mm. --Booth sift 18:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cool. It would be great to add that to the Wikipedia article and the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lion's mane jellyfish, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 08:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Contracting
Expanding

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Scyphozoa
Info A jellyfish swimming in the fjord on a calm sunny day. The photo is not taken under water but from a jetty. Please note that the red and blue in the photos are not CA, but the underwater rainbows made by light dispersion of the light by the waves. They are most prominent in this photo in the series. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question I wonder a few things. Did you use a polarizer to get rid of reflection? Did you tweak the aspect ratio to make up for the refraction of the light, so the proportions are more natural? Thank you. - Benh (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benh, no polarizer, I skipped those years ago since they steal so much of the light. ;-) When you shoot things moving in water, you need to get at least below 1/200 sek for sharpness and for a bit of dof and low ISO a polarizer would ruin everything (I have tried). And no tweaking of aspect ratio (the ratio is as in raw), the proportions were already ok since the surface was calm and almost flat. Through much trial and error over a few years, I have found the perfect way to shoot things in the water. You have to wait for a very calm day with no wind (very rare here), choose the time of day that the sun will be at a good angle (non reflecting way) at the place you want to have a go at. Nearby moored boats are a blessing since the provide shade from the glare on the surface. I usually stalk things in the sea at marinas for this reason. Then you take a lot of photos, hoping that one will not have the stray surface reflection like in this photo I included for reference. So I keep an eye on the weather forecast and hope for good conditions. I've been testing this place, a marine nature reserve, since September last year. It has some nice interesting marine life. We finally had two days of calm weather and lots of sun so I could spend two rather successful mornings by the fjord. Unfortunately the eels were too deep to get good shots of. --Cart (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for those insights. As for the aspect ratio point, I'm fairly sure that since the light changes direction between water and air, it compress the image in one direction (or both? not sure). If one direction, as it seems on the first picture, they it might be good to consider tweaking the aspect ratio. But, just my feeling. It's not like I see that many jellyfishes in my daily life. - Benh (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and under certain conditions, the polarizer "steals" mostly only the reflected light :) - Benh (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to change any ratios. In all of these photos the jelly was only a couple of centimeters under the surface, so any distortion is negligible. This is pretty much what these small specimens look like, rather flat, unless fully contracted. They don't get large and dome-shaped this far south. --Cart (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support It shines like a lamp bulb -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. They work the same way fibre optics do (or those water-filled pet bottles you see on smart-fix videos on YouTube). The sun hits them, and they light up. --Cart (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --A.Savin 13:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I would support the first one by itself, but as a set the second one doesn't fit well IMHO. The crop is not ideal, the jellyfish is partially cropped off and the background doesn't match the first photo. – Lucas 13:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty sure someone would have these two objections. First: When a jellyfish expands it kind of "explodes" with tentacles going all over the place. The tentacles are about 60-80 cm long so having the total radius in the photo would make for a really dull composition, and then I would get objections that the jellies were not the same size in the photo. The collected vs the chaos in these form a rather nice contrast to each other. Second: These guys move so light conditions and background are constantly changing (even if they move only a couple of decimeters, in this photo half is with greenish and half with bluish background). I've matched them up in the series much as I could. It's no problem fixing this in Photoshop, but I'd rather keep things as original as possible. --Cart (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain! I no longer feel comfortable opposing but the feeling remains that the first image is vastly superior visually and the movement of these animals is not shown well enough by the second one, so Neutral it is. – Lucas 16:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I guess this photo would be the color and intensity you'd be looking for. I'd like to keep it as it was though, but consensus may want a different thing. --Cart (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 18:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting set. Cmao20 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Gnosis (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Carty nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
btw Here are the bad photos of eels (or possibly Nessie on vacation) I mentioned earlier: 1, 2, 3. --Cart (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class : Scyphozoa

File:Albert Einstein Head cleaned.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 17:54:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by Oren Jack Turner - uploaded by Jaakobou - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk 17:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Albert Einstein in 1947; Similar image nominated in April of 2009 and failed; I have no clue at how likely it is that this image will succeed. However a similar image is featured on both the Arabic and Persian wiki's and is a valued image on Commons. -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk 17:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in this state. This is certainly a potential FP, but it needs restoration first. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Per Yann for now--Booth sift 03:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs cleaning, per Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, per others.--Vulp here 07:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montmorency Falls, Quebec.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 18:16:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Weather? Why have you chosen that category? --Cart (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cart Thanks, the category was wrong --Wilfredor (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Superb resolution and quality. Cmao20 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very high resolution but dull colors in my view, maybe not the best light, the water lacks details as it is almost overexposed. Also the foreground is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Morin Please, could you show me where are the overexposition?, the water hitting generates foam and bubbles, that could explain the color white ? thanks for your review --Wilfredor (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've added two notes. When checking the details on Photoshop, by reducing the light, I discover all the shades of this fall, unfortunately completely invisible with this light which makes them all white. It means the section is not burnt but almost overexposed, with all the details missing. Also there is a weird grey part in this area, is it post-treatment ? I've added another specific note. My main objection to this picture is really the dull light and fade colors, otherwise the compo would be fine with the foreground cut -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes, however, I think it is the natural white color of the water, there is no overexposure, however, I respect your evaluation. A good example is this other featured image that also has white colors in the water without any detail. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too tight crop. —kallerna (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above--Booth sift 18:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colors because of flat light, WB seems a little off, and per Basile overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 07:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount Bigelow panorama.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 15:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Maine
Info: taken around sunset; all by me -- СССР (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately I lean more to the 'QI but not FP' category here. It's excellent quality, and pretty scenery as far as it goes, but I think I would prefer something more compelling in terms of light or composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao--Booth sift 03:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An improvement over the last one, but still nowhere near FP (And frankly the best possible view might be from the summit of Sugarloaf where you can see all of Bigelow's summits spread out, rather than this). Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:SchoolLunch.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 19:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by the United States Department of Agriculture - uploaded by Fluffy89502 - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why PNG? Since the source is a JPEG file, nothing is gained. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I touched the image up in Photoshop and saved it as a .psd and exported it with the “quick export as .png” feature. -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk 05:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see what the historic value is, and it's not enough to overcome the low quality of this shot. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case--Booth sift 23:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find it touching, it is historical - before FDR, kids wouldn't be getting these kinds of meals, would they? - and the quality is acceptable for 1941 and an indoor shot of this kind, in this context, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, like a lot of other people, I don't have enough pleasant memories associated with school lunches to appreciate that

. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The context was that when FDR started his time in office, people were starving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image also highlights racial segregation in the forties (all those children are Mexican, no other race of children are in that room). A variant of this image is used on the page Mendez v. Westminster which banned segregation like this in places including NM, notwithstanding the part with FDR. -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk 05:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. I didn't pick up on all of the students being Mexican-American, and I didn't know about that case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bad composition and overall not a good photo. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It is a touching image, although in essence it is government propaganda and should probably be seen through a slightly sceptical lens. The quality is not brilliant, but overall I think it's interesting enough to feature. Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Daniel and Frank -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We can't drop our standards just because it's old, when it's very possible to have created better photos in the 1940s. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Frank. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vogelflugschau im Schloß Augustusburg. 2998WI1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 17:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created and uploaded by Kora27, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is very good. I also like the light. -- Yann (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Interesting, dynamic photo. Cmao20 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photo, but since you have put it in /Animals/Birds instead of /People at work, shouldn't the falcon be a bit better identified? --Cart (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, or maybe the category People at work, since this image competed at the challenge Working Women two month ago -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed the category. Yann (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither bird nor handler are in focus. All very soft. Charles (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sharp at 3600 px large but the crop is tight at the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's unsharp, but the noise reduction seems to have killed the details and the crop to the left is a bit too tight. . --Granada (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also a strange banding in the sky --Llez (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the weird artifacts in the sky noted by Llez above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward crop noted above and frankly, even without looking to confirm the technical failings, I'm just not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llez and Ikan Kekek: The background is obviously not the sky. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious what else it would be, but even if it's a painted background, those look like weird artifacts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: To me, the background is some ills or mountains, with some buildings in the lower right, below the bird wing. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info There is another earlier version of this file: File:Vogelflugschau. Schloß Augustusburg. 2H1A7998OB.jpg. It doesn't appear to have the small imperfections that seem to bother some voters. Why don't you put that up as an Alt? --Cart (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the other opposes above, lo siento --Booth sift 23:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. Plus poor categories (the photographer may be too unfamiliar with Commons to fix that, but the nominator actually should have done before opening the vote). Sorry. --A.Savin 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: What categories are not OK? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most categories are ok now, after I fixed them. Please also remember to use {{Personality rights}} for photos with people and to add all the info to the new Alt when you propose one. I have fixed that for you plus the language in the description (as you requested in the summary). --Cart (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the timepoint where I wrote this, there were categories: "Greifvogelschau -- Falconidae -- Unidentified women -- Women with birds". a) Greifvogelschau is just a German word and it was at that timepoint in categories "Falconry" + "Falconry in Germany" -> never heard of COM:OVERCAT? b) Falconidae is obviously too generic, the species needs proper identification. c) "Unidentified women" is only for women who needs to be identified (for example a sportswoman at a certain contest, where the photographer doesn't know her name but it's obvious that she is notable and has or at least deserves her own category) -- otherwise the category is hopelessly overflow and no one is able to pick out some photos, identify the person and move them to a more proper category. d) "Women with birds" has been the only proper category. A shame that an allegedly long-term sysop doesn't know such basic things. --A.Savin 14:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Your personal attack is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any. And wrt the categories, I'm certainly right. --A.Savin 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per what I wrote below. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Support As proposed by Cart above. Pinging @Cmao20, W.carter, Basile Morin, Eatcha, and Granada: @Charlesjsharp, Llez, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, and Boothsift: @A.Savin: people involved above. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the wow is in how she (with the help of the wall) frames the bird and the strong interaction between them. It's a large photo and I think the sharpness is acceptable. --Cart (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need for pinging me, I just commented and did not oppose. --Granada (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support still okay -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than the other one, I have switched my support vote away to this one. Cmao20 (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to oppose because the main subject isn't properly identified. What's more, I'm 95% certain it's actually misidentified (I would be shocked if that turned out to be a member of Falconidae). Regardless of the FP category, it's the most prominent part of the image. Rather than oppose (it is a good photo) I've tried to do some research to try to identify it, but have not had luck yet (I'm ok with birds of North America, but that's it). I've asked in a bird identification subreddit that tends to be pretty helpful and will report back if/when someone replies. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already received a response: Ferruginous Hawk / Buteo regalis (indeed not part of Falconidae). Didn't come up in my research because it's not a European bird. Must be breeding them or something. Considering it further, I think I still come down as weak oppose on this. It's a good photo at a glance, but it's not strong in any one particular way. I think it's hard to say the main subject is the woman, since she's way off to the side, cropped off, and looking directly at the bird, which is in the center of the frame and center of attention. But a photo of a captive animal should really be excellent technical quality to be featured. This is a nice shot, but I'd want to see more sharpness for a captive bird. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the species. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, essentially per Rhododendrites. If the woman weren't cropped on the viewer's left, the composition might be good enough to override the relative softness of the hawk, but I don't like the crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm still not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it still doesn't cut it for me. --Booth sift 06:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and quality could have been better but I like how the woman and the hawk are looking at each other. It feels like their communicating. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Togetsu-kyō bridge at golden hour, Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2019 at 02:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The golden hour light makes this. --Cart (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing what the "golden" hour brings here, the subject is still evenly lit (light source likely from behinf), and it's not that golden. And lack of the golden light benefit aside, it's a fairly straightforward shot. - Benh (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, looking at most of the other photos of this bridge, it looks gray and rather unattractive. The Japanese article about the brigde confirms that only the top guard rail is made of wood, the rest is reinforced concrete. In this photo the golden light makes it appear like it was all made of some nice wood. That's what tipped the scale for me at least. --Cart (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 23:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart's explanation to Benh of how the golden-hour light has made the view look quite different. Cmao20 (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- But why is the left part of the bridge not shown? Llez (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best view point with the light and the background, and there is a tree hiding it. See also the shape of the pier that doesn't help. But looking at the 85 pictures in the same category, it appears that all the photographers cut it like I did, so probably the left part is not so photogenic :-) Thanks Basile Morin (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rbrechko (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sonnenblume IMG 2656.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2019 at 15:36:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Asteroidese
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Fischer.H, you already have two nominations. If you want this one to be opened again, you have to {{withdraw}} one of the other nominations. Otherwise, you are of course welcome to nominate this at another time. Could you please, please read the instruction on the page COM:FPC more carefully. If you don't understand it, please ask another German-speaking user for more information. --Cart (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other nominations are withdrawn and the FPD is removed. --Cart (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are translated into many languages incuding German, the topmost box offers the selection. – Lucas 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas and others, yes that works in theory but unfortunately, all of the pages in other languages are not completely translated and most have outdated or missing information. The German version is among the better, but even it falls short of containing all information. Try reading some of them and you'll see. That is why I always link to the English "mother page" so that I know I will link to correct and updated info. (diff about this) --Cart (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm not sure how I feel about the main subject - the backlighting is nice, but I'm not sure it's FP nice and I don't really understand how everything but the plants is pitch black. However, the blurry flower in the foreground seals my opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, you might want to check your monitor if you really only see black in the background. If the angled sun only hits the flowers and the background stays in shadow, this is the result, I've once captured a very similar shot. – Lucas 07:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I exaggerated. I do see some colors above the flower, between the flowers and below the flower. But a lot of it does look black. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this, it's interesting to see a flower shot from a slightly unusual angle. The quality is lovely, and the blurry flower doesn't bother me because I can clearly see it's another sunflower rather than some random, extraneous plant - although I would also support if it were cloned out. Cmao20 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurry specimen is distracting, and the main one turned away is not very welcoming -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Booth sift 18:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely, --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly due to the distracting second flower. – Lucas 07:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (3) - avec lumière bleue.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 09:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 09:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's the same picture then Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (2) - avec lumière.jpg taken a few seconds later, with blue lights in addition to the building
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 09:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way too similar! If you like this image better you should have nominated it in the first place --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin. I would not even have uploaded both, never mind nominated. --A.Savin 13:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin, it was great first time around but this is too similar by far, sorry. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I understand, excuse me. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 15:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoogspanningsmasten in het Ketelmeer 30-06-2019. (d.j.b). 05.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 15:26:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Netherlands
Info Electricity pylons in Lake Ketelmeer. The sailing ship in the distance shows how high the pylons are.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition and a deserved QI but not sure where the wow is for FP, as this seems like a relatively ordinary and not very beautiful scene, and the light isn't especially great. Unless there's something particularly unusual or noteable about these pylons? Cmao20 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow. --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very wowing tbh --Booth sift 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I'm going to support an FP candidate where power lines and towers over a large inland body of water are going to be used to demonstrate something relative to another object, it would be one of those power lines over Lake Pontchartrain demonstrating the curvature of the Earth. This just doesn't have any wow, although it is a pretty nice day. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Collier MNHT PRE.2009.0.239.1. Noir.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2019 at 19:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish so much that it was sharper. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Podzemnik. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Really interesting subject but sorry Boothsift, I agree with the above here. Seems like the focus has been missed slightly. Cmao20 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Got it, thank you for the reviews--Booth sift 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copenhagen Opera House 2014 04.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2019 at 17:13:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the light is good, the angle-of-view isn't best. The chimneys are visible and some cranes hit the front. Compare File:Copenhagen Opera House 2017-08-16 2.jpg, with a slightly different angle (though it would be improved further if taken from greater distance), or File:Opera House At Night (149762917).jpeg straight-on with nice reflection in the water. Also the image is quite small (6.5MP) for 2019 and the water occupies a lot of the frame and is not the best feature. -- Colin (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. – Lucas 18:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin; we do have better images of this building. Daniel Case (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jabirú africano (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), delta del Okavango, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 10.jpg edit

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order : Ciconiiformes (Storks)
Info Exemplar of Saddle-billed stork (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), Okavango Delta, Botswana. Note there is already one FP of this animal, see here. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall I think the pose is sufficiently different from your other FP for it to be featured. Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the reason I support this as well as the other one is that it shows the bird's wings better. I agree that the other one is sharper but this one offers a little something different. Cmao20 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good composition unfortunately the quality is much lower than File:Jabirú_africano_(Ephippiorhynchus_senegalensis),_delta_del_Okavango,_Botsuana,_2018-07-31,_DD_11.jpg. The wings are very blurry and in focus the head is unsharp. Also very similar to the promoted one -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. The existing FP is better in this regard. Sorry. --A.Savin 00:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alexander, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice pose but not sharp enough, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others -- Llez (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 21:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ara militaris - Maroparque 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2019 at 05:54:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, very detailed and great light ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: what a marvelous portrait! --СССР (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One can get really lost following the latticework of all those neck feathers. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite excellent, of course. Cmao20 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support high quality. Charles (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marienkäfer und Puppe 6290099 PSD.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2019 at 20:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extraordinary picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. -- -donald- (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fully sharp like focus stacked -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like an adult and a nymph. Are you sure the description is correct? Charles (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pretty sure. If you have a look in the category the pupae all look like this.--Ermell (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, pupa, but 'empty pupa' is not correct. Charles (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile, the sharpness of this is quite extraordinary. Cmao20 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW starts at 100%. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Meeting of the Supreme Command.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 17:39:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by British official photographer - uploaded by Eastfarthingan - nominated by Gnosis -- Gnosis (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info SHAEF commanders at a conference in London. From left to right: Lieutenant General Omar N. Bradley, Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Sir Bernard Montgomery, Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory and Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith.
Support -- Gnosis (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose below resolution requirements. Tomer T (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per resolution requirements, but it is interesting to see all these figures who are now a part of military legend all in the same place. I do see why you nominated it. Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too small, as per Tomer T above, and nothing exceptional. Yann (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 10:29:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Posters_and_advertisement
Info created by J. Howard Miller / Office for Emergency Management, restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic poster. -- Yann (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cart (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprised this isn't already featured. Cmao20 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support And thank you, Yann, you're being very kind given I accidentally stole this FP from you, by not waiting long enough to see if you wanted to claim it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 and Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Athen Erechtheion BW 2017-10-09 13-58-34.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 14:00:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Greece
Info created by Berthold Werner - uploaded by Berthold Werner - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured. Cmao20 (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty good picture. Viztor (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)+[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the best available from this angle.--Peulle (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Support per Peulle. --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:City Hall Station (32155).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 13:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info The City Hall subway station in New York City closed in 1945 because the length and curve of the track couldn't accommodate newer cars. I first learned of it as "the abandoned station you can see out the window of the 6 train" (which still uses the track to turn around, but doesn't stop there). When I finally did get access, there were some interesting architectural/design elements, and I was particularly drawn to this skylight, which looks up to an unsuspecting area of City Hall Park now. Created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this half-sideview instead of the usual straight up angle, with the bulbs more visual. A bit "Gotham". --Cart (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Gotham indeed. Nice angle, good quality, and an interesting bit of history. Cmao20 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. I like that you not only got this holy grail of NYC subway pictures, you got it from a different angle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Etienne-Jules Ramey Thésée et le Minotaure Tuileries Paris.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 22:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info created by Siren-Com - uploaded by Siren-Com - nominated by Siren-Com -- Siren-Com (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Siren-Com (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's not at all bad, and shows the statue from a great angle, but the technical side could be a bit better. In particular the background is a bit 'blotchy' in places, probably from in-camera noise reduction, and lacks detail in parts. The resolution is also not that high. I see that it was taken in 2009, and I feel that it might have been nominated here a few years too late - it probably would have passed then, but I'm not sure it's quite there ten years later. Cmao20 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per Cmao20. I feel that the statue could be sharper. Maybe try taking the photo again, if you have a new camera since then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting background, mainly the tree, and not enough resolution per others – Lucas 07:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Booth sift 03:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian Fleet (1892) il. 07 Chesma - Restoration, cropped.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 04:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created by Stadler and Pattinot, after Vasily Ignatius - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm liking the more subdued colors of the original better. Are you really sure it was originally this intense? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a compromise between the two copies. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice another copy. Sorry if I'm missing a link already on the file page, but where is the other copy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks. No way to know for sure how this was intended to look, but I agree that this is a reasonable compromise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It does seem like perhaps the saturation/contrast are more than the original, but it's not so significant that would make me oppose what is otherwise a solid nomination. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport

File:Green and yellow taxi at night in Yasukuni-dori Avenue, Shinkuku, Tokyo.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2019 at 03:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you do some selective cleaning of the noise in the sky? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see significant noise, please could you add a note ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's faintly visible across the entire black sky. No color noise, just uneven patches of brighter and darker spots. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support there's a spelling error in the file name, though ("Shinkuku") --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ! Absolutely correct (you) I will rename this file as soon as the vote period is finished (so as not to disturb the bot in its task). Thanks! -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The white car in the back ruins it for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. Too bad!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle and per the cropped 2 buildings on the left which neons looked the most interesting Poc o² 18:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full buildings in the following version. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The right is a little distorted but I like the rest of the image too much to care ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not psychedelic enough for a Shinjuku-image. The composition doesn't convince me. —kallerna (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different composition below. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The taxi makes this special. Cmao20 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If only that white car wasn't there--Booth sift 05:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support sure, it would be better without the white car or with perhaps a wider FOV, but it's an interesting scene that makes me curious to look into the details. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wider FOV below. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Alt has better composition but ... the white car. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Comment Larger framing, square format. This version is more focusing on the buildings. I think the white car is less intrusive because these two taxis become part of the whole avenue. Pinging the previous voters @King of Hearts, Martin Falbisoner, Ikan Kekek, and Podzemnik: @Ermell, Peulle, Johann Jaritz, and Famberhorst: @Poco a poco, Daniel Case, Kallerna, and Cmao20: @Boothsift and Rhododendrites: . Thanks for the votes and reviews -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still no.--Peulle (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, at least the name of the file -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Oppose. The building on the left should be moved more towards the center - however to keep the picture format you'd have to cut into the white car. Normally I don't fret about such edits but in this case I feel it would be a no-no to do so. -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure which I prefer. Cmao20 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better composition but ... the white car. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The white car still ruins it for me--Booth sift 01:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much better, but still no enough, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coconut octopus (Amphioctopus marginatus) (45031078485).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 11:28:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Rickard Zerpe - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question But the shell ? Not in the description / categories. Does this octopus use it like the hermit crab ? More information would be welcome -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably eating the soft inside part of the shell since it has its mouth over the shell's opening. The shells it uses as mobile homes seems to have another shape. --Cart (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This shell is central, so whatever its role here, I think it should appear somewhere in the file page -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few words and two categories as best as I could. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Support Good composition in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We're featuring a lot of work by Rickard Zerpe. Has anyone tried to invite him to join Commons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Ikan Kekek I've just flicked him a message that we like his work and I invited him to join us. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The shell looks like a Canarium-species, possibly Canarium urceus, the size is 4 - 5 cm. Llez (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Baldy Hill from Snowslide Valley, Craigieburn Range, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2019 at 23:20:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. In this picture, I enjoy the unusual light. The sharp edge on the bottom is caused by the shadow of the surrounding mountains. The soft top is caused by snowy clouds. Because the resolution is quite good, you can study quite well different gradients of the same color but under different light conditions. -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. For once, the shadow makes it more interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Toblerone with foil on top. --Cart (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, the shadows add sdd something tot the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking view with this high contrast -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: beautiful overall and great composition, but the blown highlights above the shadow are too plentiful and thus distracting. They could perhaps be recovered from RAW. --СССР (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize it's snow which is lit by the sun before making such a statement, right? - Benh (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this negates the "burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element" part in the guidelines? The lighting in this scene is certainly challenging, but its not non an excuse to forego proper exposure and/or post-processing --СССР (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me white should appear white. Especially if it's under direct lighting by a harsh source. Interpreting the guideline as they are without taking into account the context is ridiculous sometimes. - Benh (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, unlike, for example, a piece of highly polished homogeneous white plastic, has texture. And no amount of sunlight is going to change that. --СССР (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but have you ever seen snow under harsh light? The dynamic range of human eye is not nearly enough to see the textures in those conditions, HDR-images are another story. —kallerna (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was taken an hour before sunset, when the light would've been anything but harsh. --СССР (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@СССР Thanks for pointing that out. I've reduce highlights and whites for that area that is nearly not clipping at all now. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done; Support --СССР (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@СССР Since a few folks here have risen conserns about the highlights, I've put them back close to original file (but they're still reduced). You can check it out as you might want to change your vote again. Sorry, it's quite hard to balance sometimes between my own opinion and everybody elses. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I think the first revision was better, but I'm not going to change my vote out of spite. I do find it hilarious that some people suggest I don't know what snow is supposed to look like, having spent half my life in Siberia and other - in Canada. --СССР (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@СССР I think that things written down often look more serious than they actually are :) I often write something with a smile on my face and then when I read what I just wrote, it starts to look like it was written in anger, even though the opposite is the true :) --Podzemnik (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Lack of face to face input can be disorienting :-) --СССР (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 18:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think you did right to reduce the highlights. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a way to make a statement. --СССР (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great photo. I don't think the revision was necessary, but I don't mind it, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. I'm afraid making dazzling white snow into grey isn't acceptable, and we shouldn't alter reality just because someone takes a rigid and, sorry to say this, ignorant view of how our guidelines should be applied. Sunlight snow is not grey. -- Colin (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin Thanks for the vote. Alright, I've restored the area. I only put highlights highlights at -15 which is nearly the same as it was before. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Support Now. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Confident support for an impressive image of a grand scenery! As the Canon 6D sensor sports 5.472 x 3.648 pixels, I assume that the image was stitched from three initial images in portrait mode. My full respect, no stitching artefacts visible, not even in the criss-crossing branches at the bottom. Yes, the snowy ridges in full sunlight are a trifle on the bright side, but only when viewed isolated from the rest of the image. Taking a step back and having a look at the full image, the bright and dark areas balance very nicely. --Franz van Duns (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Equestrian Portrait of Cornelis (1639–1680) and Michiel Pompe van Meerdervoort (1638–1653) with Their Tutor and Coachman ("Starting for the Hunt") MET DP146442.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 21:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Pharos - uploaded by Pharos - nominated by StudiesWorld -- StudiesWorld (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StudiesWorld (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid digitisation. Cmao20 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support those faces... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather low resolution for digitisation, I would expect a width of at least 10.000 pixels. Nevertheless exemplary rendering of colour and detail. --Franz van Duns (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Man Waving Hand GIF Animation Loop (large).gif, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2019 at 06:15:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info test nomination by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Eatcha (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Aldrin Looks Back at Tranquility Base - GPN-2000-001102.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2019 at 12:10:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA/Neil Armstrong - uploaded by Wstrwald - nominated by The NMI User -- The NMI User (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient DoF, there are better images. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kenny. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We shouldn't feature all images taken on the moon, and the composition of this one isn't the best with Mr Aldrin uncomfortably close to the left of the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 05:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20.--Peulle (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lutte sénégalaise Bercy 2013 - Mame Balla 03.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 15:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created & uploaded by Pyb - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Looks fine in quality terms but it doesn't have any wow for me as I don't really have any interest in this sport. Let's see what others think. Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overly cool light with distracting mix of shadows and even if the sides were cropped in the facial expression isn't sufficiently compelling. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work for me at all, sorry --Booth sift 01:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volkach Hallburg Weinberg 200734.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2019 at 21:45:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info Vineyards in Lower Franconia near Hallburg Castle. In the background you can see the Steigerwald. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and simple composition. The sides are out of focus but I'm not too bothered - it helps reinforce the central subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice compo Poc o² 15:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really love this, what a beautiful composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support File this one under "Shouldn't work, but it does" Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The thumbnail doesn't do this justice. Maybe it's just me, but at a glance at the thumbnail, the blurred foreground on the edges -- and the orange parts in general -- seem a little messy, but at full size it's really quite nice. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is tilted clockwise. See pylons and church spire. -- Colin (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the hint. You were right.--Ermell (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from the blurry sides, very nice composition. F/16 would have been very appropriate with this long focal length -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the image stabilization would have reached its limits. The general sharpness doesn't necessarily increase either, but I will try it at the next opportunity.--Ermell (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a tripod (or monopod) is usually necessary in such operations. Interesting work anyway -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not only nigh-perfect symmetry with both straight and curved features, but also an archetypical example of luminosity/chromatic contrast in nature (background subdued green-blue versus foreground bright orange. A text-book example. My full respect for this image! --Franz van Duns (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hip replacement Image 3684-PH.jpg (delist) edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 15:17:07

Older image of en:Hip replacement, currently Featured Picture.
New image.

Info The new image is of higher spatial resolution and has much better exposure of the bones. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Mikael. We don't need to delist/replace images -- Commons FP can have more than one featured hip replacement. That said, looking at the category, I think the old FP is not representative of the best such images. I wonder if your new photo would be better nominated as a set, with the before photograph. There's quite a lot of flesh clearly represented, and an IUD, which for some purposes could distract a little from the bone/replacement, but has its own merits too. Is the occupation of the subject relevant -- I'd tend towards minimising possibly identifying information. -- Colin (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Colin that you should not delist the old one. Simply nominate the new one and perhaps some other images in the set. It is also great to keep the old for comparison with the new to illustrate the development of X-ray photos over time. Please keep the info about this being a nurse. I suspect you do that to indicate that this is one of "your own" and patients should not have to worry that you'd take just any X-ray images and make them public. This is done in many professions and we also have photos stating "Wikipedian modeling with ...". --Cart (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: Whole case series. As suggested below. I did get written consent from the person, including mentioning the occupation, so that should not be a significant issue here. Also, I agree the older image may indeed be more appropriate to show a hip prosthesis specifically, since the newer one makes other objects and structures visible. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ok Mikael, det här blev lite fel. Du kan tyvärr inte bara lägga upp de nya bilderna så här på en 'Delist and Replace'-nominering. Mycket av hela proceduren här sköts av en Bot och nomineringarna måste anpassas till det. Du måste dra tillbaka den här nomineringen och skapa en ny 'Set'-nominering för alla bilderna på korrekt sätt. Du gör det genom att först placera {{withdraw}} och signera längst ned på den här nomineringen. Jag har kommenterat bort bilderna här så att den koden inte ska störa arkiveringen av det här. Sen får du gå till COM:FPC och skapa en ny 'Set'-nominering med hjälp av rutan där det står "Create new nomination - Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/". Följ instruktionerna där. Jag håller ett öga på vad du gör och fixar ifall något skulle gå fel. Lycka till! --Cart (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for the advice, Cart. I'm a bit busy today, but I'll be back at this when I have the time, and feel free to create one if you want it done soon. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush Mikael, you create the Set nom when you have the time. --Cart (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kościelec view 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2019 at 05:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp for such a small photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moderated support due to the unsharp areas on the right. Not the sort of landscape you think of when you think of Poland, especially given the name of the country. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Very sharp photo, but I'm not entirely convinced by the composition somehow. Cmao20 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Oppose. Colin is definitely right about the technical flaws. I think my screen wasn't bright enough to see the posterisation earlier. Cmao20 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Per Cmao20, quality is good and the view nice, but you alone have a bunch of such images. The whole mountain range could be FP to me but this frame alone is not telling me much in terms of composition, sorry Poc o² 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Poco about the composition. Also the sky has heavy posterisation and there is green/purple chroma noise/aberration over the whole image. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit empty, compared to this one promoted last week for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Katharine Cree Church Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 16:26:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info St Katharine Cree guild church, Leadenhall Street, London, looking east from the organ loft at the west end. Built in 1628, St Katherine Cree is an important example of Jacobean architecture, a time during which few churches were constructed. The stained glass is original to the seventeenth century, as is the spectacular rose window visible in this picture, which was modelled closely on the large rose window in the original St Paul's Cathedral (which was destroyed in the Great Fire of London). Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about camera and lens information ? --Wilfredor (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect some of that information was stripped during the process of stitching the image, but this one is no more lacking in such information than the others I have been nominating recently (for example, this one, which you supported). Indeed, the same is true of the church interiors Diliff nominated himself. Cmao20 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rbrechko (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support what are those sacks for? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They look like kneeling cushions to me... --Cart (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cart is right, yes. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So not filled with flour then. :) Well, I suppose if they were, that would create quite a dramatic, if messy, effect at the start of prayer. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shall suggest it to the vicar Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Konrad Adenauer by Giuseppe Moro, August 1961.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2019 at 06:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info August 1961: The German chancellor Konrad Adenauer reading the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (issue of August 7, 1961) during his stay at the Villa La Collina in Cadenabbia, Italy. Created by Giuseppe Moro - uploaded by KAS-ACDP - nominated by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very large resolution, but also extremely noisy. I have to downsize 6 times to appreciate a bit. Question Since we have better quality pictures of the same period I wonder what makes this one exceptional for you (and others) ? Adenauer is almost seen from behind -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment grainy, not noisy. So it's a feature - not a bug. ;) But honestly, it really doesn't matter. We've just published the image in a book, the quality is more than fine. Besides there are barely any pictures showing Adenauer reading a newspaper at all (to my knowledge there are 4, including this image), although Adenauer used to peruse the headlines every day. I also like the perspective, actually. It's rather unusual as it offers a glimpse at what Adenauer is looking at. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too grainy, a feature I don't think so, but thanks for your response -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The quality isn't that great, but it's an interesting, intimate glimpse of a public figure in a private moment, and as Martin says it is a rare and unusual find. Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle is wrong for me; you can't see the man's face, so in theory, this could be anybody.--Peulle (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle on this one, I wasn't able to recognize him at first.--Booth sift 03:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice relaxed scene and grain is a part of these impromptu reporter photos. Unfortunately his nose is elongated by something in the background, disrupting his profile, and that bothers me. --Cart (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination alright, thanks everybody! The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung really likes the image though and will use it occassionally --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:India - Varanasi boy balloon - 2735.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 20:21:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created & uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very interesting IMO, others' opinions may differ tho --Booth sift 00:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice but a bit too busy Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Boothsift and Christian Ferrer, it's not bad but I've seen better street photography here. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift and Christian Ferrer.--Vulp here 05:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Wedding cake - Kathmandu, Nepal on 2018.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2019 at 08:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info created by Nirmal Dulal - uploaded by Nirmal Dulal - nominated by Nirmal Dulal- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All my best wishes to the happy couple, but as a food photo, this hold no wow for me. The light is cold and uninviting, top and bottom too close cropped and the cake itself could benefit from some post-processing cleanup to look more appetizing. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and also CA.--Peulle (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a high quality image for sure (and it is QI), but no wow. Sorry. Ahmad^talk 09:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination- I withdraw this nomination as per FP Guidelines. - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Nirmal Dulal, please don't remove the nomination from the list after it has been withdraw, just leave it there. It will be archived by a Bot or an experienced user. I will do it for you now, but remember this in the future. --Cart (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mercado de Colón, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 07.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 21:20:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Interior view of the Mercado de Colón ("Columbus Market"), center of Valencia, Spain. The public market, built between 1914 and 1916 is one of the main examples of the Valencian Art Nouveau. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 21:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taken in 2014 but still holds up well today. The architecture is lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Structure from driftwood on the beach in New Brighton, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured , featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 10:18:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#New_Zealand
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I like the light and composition. The photo was taken right after the sunrise so the sun is shining right into the structure. The photo is photo-stacked from 2: one photo is focused on the structure, another photo is focused on the Moon. The grass is quite soft but I think it's alright - it provides some depth to it and I couldn't really photo-stacked it anyway, it was quite windy and the grass was moving a lot. -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A clever and creative idea. The grass is a bit soft, but this isn't the kind of picture you pixel-peep - the wow is all there at small size. Cmao20 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I can't see any encyclopedical value for this. For me this is only a photo of some debris during a sunset, no wow. —kallerna (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@—kallerna Thanks for the vote. Please see the discussion here at the bottom. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Llez (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, with minimal effort I discovered this article with interesting facts centred on Driftwood. --Franz van Duns (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunlight through clouds and view of Ginkaku-ji Temple from above, Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 01:42:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Great photograph, but what are those two parallel horizontal lines on the right side of the sky? Bad stitching? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed Cloned out branches in the foreground, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hiroshige would have loved that --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't recall Hiroshige depicting crepuscular rays but I agree with Martin, H-san did a lot of cool weather. --Cart (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wow, I love this. It's quintessentially Japanese, almost painterly. You have a great eye for composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy you like -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epic. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A chaotic landscape with a magical sky above it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The sky is a bit blotchy, but the composition and light are so compelling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rear right of the picture is heavily tilted clockwise. -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a top-down view, like File:Khandoba_temple_Pune.jpg POTY finalist and 1st prize of Wiki Loves Monuments 2017. Here the main subject is this natural phenomena of crepuscular rays. Similar discussions : 1, 2. There are perspective distorsions but it is not "tilted" if I check the horizontal roof of the temple at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, depth and detail! A lush landscape crafted for use by mankind. Tiny humans in the courtyard. Exotic roofing in the foreground. Mist rising from the hillside. Distant hills disappearing into the blue. An impressive sky displaying towering cumulus clouds embossed with a broad fan of sunrays. And all these traits benefit from the excitingly large number of pixels that compose this image. --Franz van Duns (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena#Sun

File:Blue-Lotus.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 10:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info created by Abdulmominbd - uploaded by Abdulmominbd - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The wow is considerable, but I think the technical side could be better. Cmao20 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Cmao. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad for a smartphone photo but I think the quality is not there. It's quite patchy and it looks like some kind of a filter has been used here. Good for Instafram but not FP for me, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors look artificial -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Another great sanitary-napkin-box image, but it looks too overprocessed for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 07:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO the colors are overamplified. Would look gorgeous on transparent print, though. --Franz van Duns (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drachme en or, Bruttium.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 07:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info created by National Library of France, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as usual for this kind of image. Cmao20 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Support Very good. --Aristeas (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classy images. Classical images. --Franz van Duns (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Hibiscus P1230969.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 16:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but nothing outstanding for FP. The resolution is not impressive. The size of the flower is not obvious. The location is not provided (as usual). --A.Savin 21:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a solid QI and I think it just about crosses the bar for me, but A.Savin's criticisms are correct. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, uninteresting lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The light is kind of harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Provide the location, and I might support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture and a nice flower, but doesn't seem like FP. A lot of noise and the composition doesn't quite work for me (with the wood in the background on only one side and the flower slightly off center -- doesn't quite seem right for the proportions). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift 03:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Pro: subject centered nicely within a square, subdued colours, and slanted illumination. Con: too much chromatic noise and weak image sharpness. --Franz van Duns (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 04:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 18:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sossusvlei Dune Ripples.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 05:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Namibia
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are already some awesome featured pictures of dunes in Namibia, but none (at least none I could find) showing dune ripples nicely.
Support -- Domob (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a nice view and composition, but the pasterisation in the sky is too much for FP I think. Can you try to do something about it? Also, I can see at least 1 dust spot. By the way how come that ISO is 200? The exposure program says "Normal program" which is automatic exposure I guess? --Podzemnik (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the page name, I'll be sure to take care in the future! I tried to reduce the gradient in the sky, is it better now? Where is the dust spot? I'll be happy to remove it. If your question is why ISO 200 and not 100, then that's simply because for some reason ISO 200 is what my camera considers the default. --Domob (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Domob I've put a note where the spot is. I don't see a significant improvement in the sky, I even wonder if it's fixable... --Podzemnik (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I removed the dust spot now and reworked the sky a bit more. Just for clarification, are you concerned about the gradient from dark on the left to brighter on the right, or the gradient from the very top to the horizon? There were quite strong winds with sand, so the latter is likely caused by sand in the air. --Domob (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Domob Thanks for the work and your explanation. I think it's better now :) --Podzemnik (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nomination. My Olympus CSC also considers ISO 200 its default, it isn't that unusual. Cmao20 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Sublime to the point of being otherworldly, and that's a high bar to get over given our other Namibian desert pictures. I almost swooned at it, and that's saying a lot for a desert landscape given the heat wave I'm sitting in looking at this. Perhaps some of the empty space at the top could be cropped down a bit more, but that's really a matter of taste on which I defer to the photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice dunes and great evening light, but the composition within the frame is important, and here 50% is filled with boring sky. Instead of a 4:3 crop, I would suggest a standard 3:2, because this gradient is not as interesting as this relief with sand. Cutting just over the fine clouds, you'll get a more striking image -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I'm happy to do that change, as it might indeed look nicer. But I'd like to get others feedback on this as well (in case some of the current supporters wouldn't want this change to happen). --Domob (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do get rid of some of the heavily posterized sky. You could also offer an alt. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provided an alternate. I hope I did that correctly (if not, please point me to the right procedure for doing it). --Domob (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support - prefer the alternative, but would still support this. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The alternative is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate edit

Comment As suggested, here is an alternate version that has some of the sky cropped out.
Support Much better and great image -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others.--Ermell (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also fine. Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually also like this one better myself. --Domob (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stronger composition, the empty sky in the previous one wasn't doing anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is even better. --Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Sossusvlei Dune Rippled cropped.jpg

File:Kiduku dance.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 18:58:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created & uploaded by Rasheedhrasheed - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this has FP potential: great composition with the framing, good subject separation and light. Nice big smile of the boy in the back. The main problem for me are the very noticeable CAs everywhere and the noise for ISO 100. – Lucas 07:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, the shot is FP-worthy and interesting but the quality level is below FP requirements, Poc o² 15:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Lucas--Booth sift 03:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately per Poco. Cmao20 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The face more visible, I would have supported -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:SMS Arcona NH 65764 - Restoration.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 02:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport
Info Unknown photographer, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, but you should increase the contrast. The ship is supposed to be white, isn't? Regards, Yann (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hugo Graf says... maybe yes, maybe no. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: But, presuming the uniforms have white in them - which, given that such uniforms were pretty much universally navy blue or white, is a safe bet - we can assume something's white in the image, and adjust accordingly. There we are! I don't like to over-stretch the levels; it's not literally radiating light, but that should be pretty good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

moderate oppose highly interesting, skillfully restored - no doubt! It's just that I find the composition a bit unbalanced. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Believable to me, and a very good historical photo, in my opinion. Martin, are you objecting to the amount of water in the foreground? If so, I won't oppose an 1897 photo with this much content for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the lastest contrast correction, but personally I would go a bit further: File:SMS Arcona NH 65764 - Restoration, edit.jpg. Please add categories. Yann (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 07:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but it doesn't really excite me...--Peulle (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent historical photo. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar image with superb quality, but taken last week would not get a single supporting vote. —kallerna (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And... how do you plan to do that? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 04:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mittlerer Weinschwärmer Deilephila elpenor-004.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 15:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by OhWeh - uploaded by OhWeh - nominated by RTG -- ~ R.T.G 15:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~ R.T.G 15:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compostion and depth of field. It is not obvious what the picture is showing - a similar creature to the one in this picture. Charles (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charlesjsharp: , it's actually this species. It's crispy clear showing details barely visible to the naked eye with no artifacts at all. The one you linked is a completely different species. The hawk moths main feature is the head area, particularly the markings shown, how they mimic a snake with fangs. It's face, the clearest part in focus, is usually not noticeable owing to its shape and markings, hence what makes this a great angle, ~ R.T.G 18:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should apologise, the thing which makes this creature intersting is that it is not really possible to tell what it is if you didn't already know. I should of thought of that when nominating. I invite you to look at the particular species category and take note only of the sort with the short face and the similar coloured markings (European variety). It sort of hides its face under the coloured neck area so this is a unique view of the actual creature beyond its camouflage, ~ R.T.G 18:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the two species are quite close relatives in the Sphingidae family. Charles (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relatives maybe, appearance, very different. It's actually an amazing creature to spot out. Where the one you linked has a long snout-like appearance, like an ant-eater, this one has a bunched neck to give it the appearance of a snakes head, and literally looks like a cartoon snake. I mean, it actually looks like that. It's a great picture, from experience. You'd know it immediately. Great poster for a fan of the thing. Perfect. Love it. ~ R.T.G 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the photo isn't going to be featured, but just to show Charles, Here is the side angle fo the same animal. As you can see it is much different, but this image doesn't catch the personality of its face in the way the one I tried to feature does. It is surprising there are not a lot of high resolution images of this type of caterpillar. It's very photogenic. I'm sure a featured picture will appear out of this genus one of the days :) ~ R.T.G 11:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should of tried to feature the one I just linked, but for me this one of its face I listed, I'd really like a poster of that for myself. ~ R.T.G 11:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Main part is not sharp enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --DOF too shallow Seven Pandas (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but I agree with the above, the depth of field is too shallow. Cmao20 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 00:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 04:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is not likely to overcome all these opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grande roue de Montréal.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 04:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a strange blue line at the bottom in the centre of the picture. Other than that, I think this is a fairly good candidate, if not the most spectacular. Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: thank you for the review; got rid of the blue line. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Underexposed. Could also do with a bit of processing to lift the shadows a bit -- the blacks are really crushed. Also I'd trim the far left off to avoid the green object. -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: thank you for the review; cropped, brightened, recovered the shadows. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sharp enough for a static shot, no wow. —kallerna (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This side view of the bridge with these ugly pillars in concrete in the foreground are not particularly successful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others abive, sorry --Booth sift 00:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I see what you might have seen, yes, but it just doesn't quite come through with all those distractions at the bottom, and although you've been very responsive to all the technical criticisms here the image still has too much unsharpness overall for me, particularly on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 04:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Underwater slope in Gullmarn fjord 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 08:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info Ok, maybe not the aquarium-perfect seascape we see further south, but millions of small creatures live in these underwater forests on the steep slopes of Gullmarn fjord marine nature reserve. Shot on a clear sunny day with the blue sky reflecting on the water, I think it looks intriguing. -- Cart (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support fascinating interplay of shapes and colors. The aspect ratio is a little bit odd, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but quite interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colorful but uninteresting for me, and messy composition with indistinct elements -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delightfully hallucinatory; the sort of image you want surrounding you while you listen to ambient music. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trippy. Also, I like the colours very much. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile – Lucas 18:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not compelling imo. And I can't see the value. —kallerna (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kallerna, per Podzemnik's comment below, I suggest you read the FPC rules more carefully. This is not Wikipedia. Even so, this photo (one of a pair), are the only ones we have showing Chorda filum as it grows naturally in the sea. You can clearly see the hairy structure of the cords, something that is totally lost in all the other photos. I'd call that valuable in an encyclopedic way. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. My main reason was not the second sentence, but the first. —kallerna (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It was not the kind of shot I undoubtly see as FP, but your last FP of this item was probably more interesting in terms of colors and compo, this one is not as interesting IMHO Poc o² 15:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've looked at this photo quite a few times, and my feeling is that it has an overwhelming movement to the lower right and no sufficient countervailing movement, so I find the form unsatisfying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very « Carty ». Wow effect for me.--Jebulon (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ruïne Casti Munt Sorn Gieri Waltensburg (actm) 24.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 15:43:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Memorial stone.
Info Waltensburg/Vuorz. Switzerland. Ruïne Casti Munt Sorn Gieri (Burg Jörgenberg). Memorial stone. A simple photo that fascinates me in one way or another.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Support per nom. It's a very good photo that has a good form and rewards moving my eyes around it. Not the most obvious FP, but I think it merits the designation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a technically correct photo. Unfortunately I can't find a wow effect. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get it either, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell Poc o² 18:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others--Booth sift 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject well-placed within frame. Nice surface sheen and signs of corrosion at bottom left, I thus assume bronze. Well captured and of historical interest. --Franz van Duns (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely agree with Franz van Duns. A beautiful shine, a nice depth and the ragged left side make this memorial plaque special. The little blue sky in the upper left also adds something to the photo. I don't vote in principle on the photo. Because it was made by my wife. But it is a shame that this photo will not make it.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote, but honestly I'm afraid your voice at this point won't completely change the result. To give more explanations about my vote, I find the light excellent, the subject sharp, that's why I agree with Ermell "this is a technically correct photo". Unfortunately the memorial plaque is boring as hell, excuse my frankness (and my subjectivity). So the "no wow" is here : in this very ordinary object, not particularly magical, not sexy, not funny, just not special enough. Certainly a very good QI, but not something original to make an FP (other users may have different feelings of course). The name of this merchant was missing on the file page, I've added it in English and in German, because it is important for the search engines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation and addition. Even if my vote could have made a difference, I would not have voted. Then you violate your principle.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better like that, I agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meibei Lake,Huyi District,Xi'an.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2019 at 13:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#China
Info created by Liuxingy - uploaded by Liuxingy - nominated by Liuxingy -- Liuxingy (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Liuxingy (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a beautiful view, but panoramas nominated for Featured Picture are usually much larger than this and the sky is blotchy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very beautiful, and I don't think it's too far from FP, but the image quality isn't as good as many that are promoted nowadays. That said I wouldn't be unhappy to see this on the main page. Cmao20 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan --Booth sift 03:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 05:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the low quality that has led to this many opposes without any support beyond the nominator. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait of a labrador retriever.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2019 at 10:53:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Dktue - uploaded by Dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dktue (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The random bit of red flower (?) below the dog's face is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose it is the tip of the tongue, not a flower --Llez (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It actually is the dog's tongue. --Dktue (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's not easy to see, because we see the tongue in the mouth, then part of it is blocked by the dog's jaw, and then a small piece of two-headed blurred red thing in the background. I think it makes the portrait less than ideal, but let's see what others think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good quality and setting, but the background unfortunately is not nice --A.Savin 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality indeed, but the background is really disturbing, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately per above. Your camera is definitely capable of FP-level quality, and this would IMO be a deserved QI if nominated there. But the background is a bit cluttered and distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't wow me and the background is blurry--Booth sift 03:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 05:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: with this many opposes, it looks like this nomination has gone to the dogs . Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chevy Bel Air in the Presidio of San Francisco.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2019 at 20:42:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Sorry Frank, rules are rules. Feel free to nominate it later unless you want to withdraw one of the other two noms. --Cart (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I thought it was three. Will nominate later. Thanks, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice one though. Very California. I'll definitely vote for it when it comes up again. Cmao20 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For some very strange reason, this is the sort of car I could envision Frank driving. :-) --Cart (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually though about that while taking this shot. It would fit my love for everything manual and hand-crafted (e.g. the straight razors or the Zeiss lenses I'm so fond of) – Can't wait for the two of us to discuss this at length soon :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malva moschata Mitterbach 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 19:23:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Malvales
Info Musk mallow (Malva moschata) with raindrops. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, sharp at lower but still high resolution (~2200px across). Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I really like the dew but sharpness could be better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Okay at lower resolution (6 Mpx) -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Wet Flower with Ears" Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Order_:_Malvales

File:Moscow Brateevo Floodplain asv2018-08 img4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 14:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Russia
Info Moskva River at Brateevo Floodplain Park, Moscow ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subtle, but pretty. Cmao20 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can totally hear the reeds doing shhhhhh --Podzemnik (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not really spectacular, just nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A classical and very good composition. Charming.--Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Greece Cape Sounion BW 2017-10-09 10-15-16.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2019 at 07:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Greece
Info created by Berthold Werner - uploaded by Berthold Werner - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, and a valuable closeup at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed. Charles (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per below, stitching errors, bad cloning at the lower left, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something has gone wrong at the very left edge. --A.Savin 12:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and at the right side as well.--Ermell (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your hints, I cropped the erroneous parts. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the lower left you can still see the processing with the clone stamp. Especially the repeating fence doesn't fit here at all.--Ermell (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very nice but there are technical shortcomings. The issue Ermell mentioned, but also quite a few stitching errors (check the fence) and there is a problem on the right where the fence just vanishes. Will support once these are fixed. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps one could wish for a bit more of an interesting sky, but on the whole there's not much here that could have been done better. Great work. Cmao20 (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per A.Savin and Ermell. There is a really disturbing cloned area. Sorry but not even a QI at this time IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are still some very important problems, mainly at the bottom left, but also at other places -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately per Christian --Cart (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nice composition but too many technical shortcomings, not even QI for me. The cloned-up areas (at least lower left and lower right corners) are obvious and far from well-done. Numerous stitching issues in the wire fence. --Kreuz schnabel 11:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yes, there are too much errors in this picture. Thanks at all for the hints and the supports. --Berthold Werner (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victoria crater from HiRise.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 13:27:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, uploaded by Makthorpe, nominated by Yann (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is pretty cool, but the wow comes from the fact that the Opportunity rover can be seen when zooming in (see note). Knowing that the rover is 2.3 m in its biggest dimension, and that it was taken from between 250 to 316 km in space, this is quite amazing. See also File:Opportunity at Victoria Crater from Mars reconnaissance orbiter.jpg. -- Yann (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this case, I think it would be great to have the annotation on the photo itself with a link to the article about the rover. More readers than we would like to see this. --Cart (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing detail! --Franz van Duns (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KlauRau (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that's the Opportunity! Great details. Ahmad^talk 18:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would probably be FP even without the Opportunity rover there. Cmao20 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least one category please.--Ermell (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like something you'd see under a microscope. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it visually attractive. Rover is just a bonus. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 14:18:24

Info Featured in 2009. Doesn't seem to me anyways to meet the Featured Picture Criteria anymore. This nomination is especially confusing to me considering this image was nominated and designated the same year. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk 14:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The composition is a bit messy, and we have so many FPs of Golden Gate Bridge anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Booth sift 05:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting and fairly good quality, not an obvious delist to me, though I wouldn't support it if it were newly nominated for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not seeing an obvious reason to delist. some technical shortcomings, but doesn't seem egregious. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wouldn't be featured today probably, but the general consensus is to not delist unless there are obvious shortcomings. We could of course have an RfC to explore whether to continue this policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Wouldn't pass a nomination in 2019, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Imho, that shouldn't have passed in 2009 either due to compositional issues. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Doesn't seem to me anyways to meet the Featured Picture Criteria anymore." is not a reason to delist. We may have other FPs of this bridge, but the beach is actually the focus of the composition. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since we have a slew of delist nominations now, it could be helpful to review what the valid reasons to delist are. What do you think about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Still no wow, and unfortunate crop. —kallerna (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others.--Vulp here 04:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others above. Yann (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per...Yann!--Jebulon (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 delist, 8 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --A.Savin 02:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica de Nuestra Señora de Licheń, Stary Licheń, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 39-41 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 03:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 03:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 03:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems like FP quality, but isn't there another FP of this church? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Ikan Kekek, this one. The subject is the same but the light and the angle pretty different. Poc o² 09:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it just me or is it tilted? --Cart (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Cart, I applied a 0,2° correction Poc o² 09:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice :) thank you Boothsift! Poc o² 09:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The light is different to the other FP, and I agree that both can be featured, but I find the composition and angle of the other picture much more compelling and I think Poco was right to nominate that one instead of this one. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak to moderate Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good mood. --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20. —kallerna (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crane de Saurolophus.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 03:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 03:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 03:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the gradient in the background neither works for me aesthetically nor does it seem to serve an actual purpose. --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Old image but still on FP level for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have long sought the ideal background for objects. I still have not found, and the black background is the one I use the most; but from time to time I let myself be tempted by various experinces that are not all happy. Thank you all and especially Boothsift for this appointment.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love images with this level of detail. And the subject is really age-old. --Franz van Duns (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hell Gate Bridge (84459)p.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2019 at 05:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Hell Gate Bridge. On the left is Randall's Island. On the right is Queens, New York City. East River underneath. Created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm. Not that it matters for this nomination, but my image notes/annotations aren't showing up since uploading a new version. Anyone know why? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed now -- your image changed from 9409 to 9410 wide, and the notes include the dimensions. I assume this is so that if someone changes the image size and the notes would be wrongly placed, they are just not used rather than being displayed wrongly. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. I guess doing the perspective correction added a pixel without me realizing. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit ordinary, maybe, but the resolution, quality and helpful annotations make up for it. Cmao20 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Convincing crop of an imposing bowstring bridge which includes the long railway approaches on both sides. A panorama probably composed of 3 images in landscape mode. On close scrutination only one stitching error visible: the top railing repeats just above the top beam between the 6th and 7th vertical beams from the right. Personal remark: Of the many panoramas I have processed with various versions of Adobe Photoshop, only a few result in multiple stitching errors,. The majority, even if composed of 20 images or more, sports exactly one stitching error, often at apparently easy-to-detect linear features as in this case. Seems like Adobe abhors producing a perfect image and secretly inserts one single error on purpose! Easily fixed by carefully applying the clone stamp, but not mandatory for featured picture status. Full support for an impressive view! --Franz van Duns (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz van Duns: New version uploaded. I think I fixed the little stitching issue on the railing. FWIW, I have not had the same experience of only one stitching error. e.g. this one recently at FPC which required shifting a chunk of floor. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Yes indeed, that stitching issue has now been meticulously removed. Note off topic: By the way, It is fascinating how the now immaculate flooring dominates that featured "Oculus (41323p).jpg" vista you supplied. And ..., I do think I'll upload a panorama or two of my own making some time soon and give them a first try on the Quality Images page. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support A nicely detailed photo of the most visible part of the longest bridge in New York State (at 5.2 km). Wish we didn't have those clouds in the back; I don't know what you have done or not done to them but I'll accept them as a necessary tradeoff for the quality of the rest of the image.
I also suppose it would have been really cool to get this picture while the Acela was crossing the bridge, but I don't know whether you had the time. Maybe another day ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Líneas de Nazca, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 49.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 16:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Another photo of the Nazca Lines for you, this time the 'Monkey', following the strong reception of the last nomination. Again, high-resolution, sharp, and with excellent quality considering the technical challenges involved. Created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, thank you again, Cmao20! Poc o² 17:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Persépolis, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 56.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 21:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Iran
Info View of Tachara also known as "Palace of Darius the Great", an exclusive building of Darius I at the UNESCO-site Persepolis, Iran. The Achaemenid-style palace was built during the Achaemenid Empire (550 BC–330 BC) and is located 70 kilometres (43 mi) northeast of the modern city of Shiraz in Fars Province. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 21:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the contrast appears a bit harsh --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, Martin Falbisoner, it's, although it was still in the morning. Sun is strong there and shines most of the time, so it's somehow royal to the subject. Are you suggesting that I reduce contrast or what do you aim with your comment? --Poc o² 10:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's what I was trying to hint at ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do agree that the light is a bit harsh, but that's probably how it looked. The composition and angle is good, the resolution is high, and it's sharp all over. Overall a strong candidate. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best lighting and washed out sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Falbisoner, King of Hearts, Daniel Case, I've uploaded a new version with the purpose to reduce that harsh light and the washed out sky. Poc o² 09:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but per King of Hearts. —kallerna (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sphinx moth caterpillar (Xylophanes crotonis).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 15:33:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info This is a huge (and hungry) caterpillar, about 10cm long. It has two false eyes which you can see better in this picture. When it grows up it transforms into this large moth with a wingspan of around 12cm. From the cloud forest of Panama at 1900m above sea level. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool Poc o² 15:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Poco :) Cmao20 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How big is the caterpillar? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

about 10cm long Charles (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, you mentioned that above. I'm undecided, as I'd like more sharpness on the caterpillar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tempère support Not as sharp as one would like, but given the conditions I can forgive that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: unfortunately, the leaf is sharper than the caterpillar. --СССР (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per CCCP.--Peulle (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Oppose per CCCP. Also your other picture is much better. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per CCCP. --Hockei (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Okay at 6Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please correct the masking of the eaten part of the leaf or of the background, incomplete. Visible at normal size. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks Jebulon Charles (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg, delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 05:25:01

Info I'm pretty sure this was considered excellent when it was nominated back in 2005, but sadly it is no longer on par with the pictures that are promoted today.(Original nomination)
Delist -- Booth sift 05:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - These old delisted FPs will still be listed as former FPs, right? It's good to have a history of what were considered high-quality digital photos at different times, but this definitely is not an FP by today's standards. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, yes, they have the {{Assessments|featured=2}} and the broken little star, see this example. All their glorious history is clearly visible on the file page. --Cart (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are they easily found in searches, as opposed to only on the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Unfortunately per nomination. The composition is great, but the quality sadly not, as was pointed out even in the original nomination in 2005. Cmao20 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak delist I was leaning towards keeping, because while there are many technical shortcomings, the shot is still quite captivating with the dramatic light/composition. What pushed me over is that we have a whole category filled with similar shots. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --El Grafo (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per others. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above.--Peulle (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Rhododendrites. Striking composition, but leaves a lot to be desired technically. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others.--Vulp here 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Jebulon (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Boothsift 06:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sea defences South Coast.jpg, delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 05:12:21

Info The composition isn't very interesting and the quality is definitely not on par with what is produced today. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Booth sift 05:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Composition is fairly good, IMO, and I don't think this is a really obvious delist, so I would say keep for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The composition is a wooden sea defence. There are definitely much better wooden sea defence pictures and it clearly isn't the only wooden sea defence out there. --Booth sift 01:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That clearly is going to be the result, but my position is that when it's not really obvious, we shouldn't be trolling through all of the old FPs to delist them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: If I were doing this in order of promotion, then this wouldn't be the one I would have nominated. There's a small chance that I might have looked at each one since I skipped three from 2004 and a bunch from 2005. --Booth sift 01:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Even without considering the quality issues I would not have supported this as an FP. It's a decent picture and illustrates the subject well, but it's crying out for something to give the composition a bit more interest or tension. Cmao20 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Cmao20 --El Grafo (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per others. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not sharp even at 3 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for the technical quality.--Peulle (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Barely passed original nomination. However, I would agree with Ikan the we don't really want to spend our time delisting old photos as focus of our attention. Also please could you link to the Featured Picture page like we do on nominations, so people can compare with other FPs. -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I'm not. I just took a look through the FPs and nominated those that I felt weren't up to standards anymore. --Booth sift 03:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Had possibilities, but this is unsharp and has some CA near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others.--Vulp here 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Boothsift 05:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boothsift, when you close a Delist, it is not enough to just close the nom here at the page since the rest is not done by a Bot. You have to follow the whole procedure for delisting as described on COM:FPC. Last time A.Savin cleaned up the rest for you last time on Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Bees Collecting Pollen 2004-08-14.jpg. If you only "close" a delist here in the list it might be archived and the rest of the procedure overlooked. If you are uncertain about how to do it all, better leave the closing for someone else, but it would be great if you too could learn how to do this. :) --Cart (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Thank you for the notice, I have finished the remaining procedures though I may have left out some steps. --Booth sift 18:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine Boothsift you only missed removing one category on this. A.Savin did that for you before I had the chance. Thank you, it is good to know there is one more user who can help with this. :-) --Cart (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doko 001.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2019 at 05:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Nirmal Dulal - uploaded by Nirmal Dulal - nominated by Nirmal Dulal -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The file should be renamed with a longer description, whater the outcome of this nomination, after it is closed. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann, thanks for comment, I'll rename it after after it is closed. -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Interesting photo, and a well-deserved QI and VI, but for this resolution I'd expect better sharpness and detail. Cmao20 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice photo and good QI (except for all that red chromatic aberration), but a simple object needs a bit more in the way of composition for an FP IMO. You might have been able to play with the shadow of the basket for example. --Cart (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice one but sorry for FP --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 18:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart—heavy CA, WB is too warm. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guion Bluford.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 18:11:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by NASA; retouched and nominated by me. -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know there's a difference between group photos and individual portraits, but this image was just promoted and it portrays a younger Bluford, photographed while he was still active.--Peulle (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Peulle, he was still active when this photo was taken. He went to space 4 times. This photo was taken before his final spaceflight. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In what way is your "retouched" (seemingly enlarged, but noisy at full size) version better than https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20190720175131%21Guion_Bluford.jpg? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek, at the very bottom right corner (notice the damage/burn?). Also compare bottom left corner. I also remove a lot of scratches but I can do more if that is the problem. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don't like the noise in the blue background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Can you highlight an example so I know what your are talking about? I will go over the whole background but I need a definition of noise to understand. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that it's an increase in grain, instead. I'd welcome another opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality in my view, Astronaut with pleasant smile -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 19:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mute swan cygnets learning in Prospect Park (80222).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 16:25:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info Mute swan cygnets and mother on a duckweed-covered pond in Brooklyn, NY. Created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very eyecatching. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'd want Mama Swan's beak more visible, but this is close enough. --Cart (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing how smooth and homogeneous this long vegetable carpet is, without disparity around the subjects as if there was no water at all. Very pleasant image with delightful soft light. Great shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cute and sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and Ikan --Aristeas (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely photo. Cmao20 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A relaxing, pleasant photo. Ahmad^talk 20:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Otherwise very nice, but the crop is imo too tight on the right side. —kallerna (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support love it Olivier LPB (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KlauRau (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A flock of fluffy cygnets a-swimming in a pond of duckweed. Needs no more. --Franz van Duns (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Megs (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Franz. Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 34 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 19:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sally Ride (1984).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 18:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes, featured.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by NASA - retouched and nominated by me. -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Her eyes are not directed at the camera and her facial expression looks like she's in abdominal pain. A good portrait photographer would have sorted this one out. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Frank sorry--Booth sift 00:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Franck Schulenburg.--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waaierbuisjeszwam (Polyporus varius) op een dode lijsterbes (Sorbus). Locatie. Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. 08-07-2019. (d.j.b). 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 15:26:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Netherlands # Polyporus varius.
Info Polyporus varius on a dead Sorbus. You hardly see any undamaged mushrooms in July in the Netherlands. This Polyporus varius has a nice wave in his hat. And two small protrusions on the head against the trunk of the dead tree.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a great composition, the only thing that bother me a little is that unsharp front of the mushroom. So I looked at the other versions to see how they looked and found the near identical number 05 that had a sharp front but the rest unsharp. As I seems to remember, you don't do focus stacked images, but it seems a shame not to combine these two photos to make a stunning and totally sharp image. I hope you will forgive me for making a merge just to see how it looked. If you like it, it is yours to use as you see fit. Here is a link to version 03-05 in my Dropbox. I apologize if you think I did anything wrong here. --Cart (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured edit

Info With Famberhorst's permission, I'm adding the focus stacked version here as an "Alt". --Cart (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to posess Cart's photoshop magic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Martin, you can follow the tips on my talk page.

--Cart (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cart, but as a southern German the Dutch language is all Greek to me ;) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Falbisoner there's always Google Translate. Seven Pandas (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

which, admittedly, works surprisingly well... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: . Thank you for helping me save my photo!--Famberhorst (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. :-) --Cart (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See below for: Basile Morin (Talk)--Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Support No issues for me. Cmao20 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations to both of you -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 19:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Polyporaceae

The chosen alternative is: File:Waaierbuisjeszwam (Polyporus varius) op een dode lijsterbes (Sorbus). Locatie. Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. 08-07-2019. (d.j.b). 03-05.jpg

File:2019-03-03 Chinstrap penguin on Barrientos Island, Antarctica.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2019 at 21:03:49 (UTC)

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures#Animals/Birds/Sphenisciformes
Info created by GRDN711 - uploaded by GRDN711 - nominated by GRDN711 -- GRDN711 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good to me. I like his expression, and it's an extraordinary creature. Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1/250 sec not fast enough to freeze the motion unfortunately. Charles (talk)

Comment for Charles - Given a gray day on Barrientos brings trade-offs… 1/250th; f/5.6; ISO 560 with a 380 mm focal length is a decent compromise. While I did not have the opportunity for second guessing, maybe I could have given up a little more ISO for a 1/320th. Really though, a sunny day would have been the best option to freeze everything and that was not available. I am OK with a slight softness in the back flipper (front and rest of body are sharp) that says this little penguin in a hurry to meet everyone. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Charles, if you get a sharper photo of this species of penguin, please submit it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take many pictures on grey days (not penguins) with the wrong settings. We all do. But then they don't get submitted to FP... Charles (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Charles - The technical settings listed above are fine given the day. The image is a good illustration of the Chinstrap penguin species and speaks to the viewer with a little Wow... appropriate for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 14:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support A little noisy in the background, but I can let that go. I also wonder if we could crop in on the sides (see suggestion) although the image is admittedly small to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your thoughts, Daniel. You are right – there is snow and ice further up the hill but behind the penguin is an uninspiring mixture of rocks, lichen, penguin poo and feathers from older birds molting. I made a duplicate of the image in Lightroom and implemented the vertical crop as you suggested. Flipping back and forth between the two, I was surprised how well the vertical format worked in bringing a little more focus to the bird. However, the 4:3 horizontal format also had its strengths. Mr. Happy is running towards the camera and the extra space, particularly on the right, gives a stronger sense of that motion towards the viewer. This action feels more constrained in the vertical. Either format would work but the horizontal, is little stronger IMO, having both a focus on the penguin and a greater implied interaction with the viewer. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks so happy. --MB-one (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Because of the overexposed parts --Llez (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Magnolia x veitchii bug at BBG (43315).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2019 at 19:24:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Magnolia bud at Brooklyn Botanic Garden. I enjoyed the pastel background of this high-quality picture, as well as the good composition, and hope you will also appreciate it. Created by Rhododendrites - uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for nominating, Cmao20. I made many attempts at trying to get just one or two magnolia buds with nice bokeh that day. Only a couple made it to Commons, and I think this one was the most successful compositionally, so I'm glad to see it here. :) As an aside, I note that the filename has a typo (bug/bud). I will rename when the nomination is closed, regardless of outcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice photo, but please edit the filename after the nomination period is over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 09:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice. But we have a lot like that (1,2...) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 16:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Forgotten pacifier on a table in Röe gård cafe.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 09:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
Info Polymer artifact, probably belonging to a young, possibly infant, human, found in a cooking area right outside habitation ID registration 10154001160001 Swedish National Heritage Board. The location of the find outside the main compound suggests it belonged to a visitor and not one of the indigenous habitants, which can explain why it was not retrieved. Significant DNA deposits on the artifact from a single individual, indicates it was a personal item of some importance to the owner. Photographed in situ and left undisturbed at the site.

I may have spent too much time with archeologists… ~~All by me, --Cart (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment I hope I've done this right... I'm going to take over this nomination of Cart's photo. I think this is a great photo and worth running full term. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for both pic and description above --Martin Falbisoner (talk)
Oppose Sorry but not wow, maybe you need take a brake --Wilfredor (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What a thing to say... --Cart (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You surely mean she should take a photo of a brake, don't you? SCNR )) --A.Savin 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Already done that and the whole bike! Even got an FP there. :-) I think it's only when you become a parent that you realize just how important pacifiers are. :) --Cart (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, so I'm too late with the nice idea (or was it Wilfredor? Nevermind) --A.Savin 13:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Doesn't work for me. For one thing, the artifact is located outside its natural habitat. ;) --Peulle (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying out the "Abandoned" genre. ;) --Cart (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Sorry Cart, it's a good illustration but I'm not sure I get the wow-factor. Cmao20 (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak support per Colin's very sensible reasoning; it still doesn't have that much appeal to me but I can see the compositional merit to it. Cmao20 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just about the only work-of-art on this page. I like the composition, the colourful, sharply focused and very rounded dummy contrasting with the grey weathered wood that is all straight lines. A fine example of the "elements of composition" (see Commons:Photography terms#Composition). In fact, I think I'm going to stick it on that page. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's just a nice picture to look at because the composition is good and the colours are pleasant. Also, it's nice to see good quality photos here at FPC - other than mountains during the sunset, panoramas of glaciers or historical paintings (nothing against them, I'm just saying that I'd like to see more diversification here). --Podzemnik (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Podzemnik and others, diversity is exactly why I make these "odd" nominations. We need really good photo of everything and I prefer to photograph objects in a context with interesting background, rather than sticking them on a clinically white or black backdrop. I can't understand why people find that so provoking, even to the point that some user thinks I've lost it and "need take a brake". That comment will be added to my growing collection of strange things said about my noms. I think I have proved that I can take "normal FPCs" (and my life would be so much easier if I just stuck with the mainstream photos), but for the wide scope of this project I find it more useful to photograph subjects we don't have FPs of. --Cart (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the "maybe you need take a brake" comment was a response to your humorous archaeology-parody text (which I very much appreciated). Wilfredor isn't a native English speaker, though improving in that regard in his new home country, so perhaps the advanced-English humour didn't work for him, or perhaps he was trying to respond in kind to your "I may have spent too much time with archeologists" self-deprecation, and that didn't translate either. I wouldn't dwell on it. -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I disagree with Colin. IMO just a "forgotten pacifier on a table in Röe gård café" - not that special or aesthetically pleasing. —kallerna (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The level of blur of the background is unpleasant. I don't find the artefact interesting, and the composition is not working with this blurry wall, awkwardly cropped.

Concerning the diversity of the nominations here, I think we feature all kind of images : Animals, Astronomy, Food and drink, Historical, Natural phenomena, Objects, Other lifeforms, People and Places. Today's POTD, for example, is well composed and very artistic : File:Грот_на_мысе_Большой_Атлеш.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, I have sorted many of them into those categories, but the selection is far from as diverse as it could be especially wrt to normal everyday human activities and items. --Cart (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the selection is just based on a consensus. There's no limitation concerning the various possible nominations as far as I know in the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I hope some of my noms of items like this will encourage other users to photograph what they have around them and not always look to a far off horizon in the setting sun (figuratively speaking). But seeing how such choices are received here at FPC, I'm sorry to say that I think most photographers will be discouraged to try and not risk the discussions I have to face. --Cart (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's more about improvement in my opinion. To quote Jim Richardson : “If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff.” -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Richardson didn't take photographs for a repository from which mainly Wikiprojects get their photos. --Cart (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This picture shows a high level of blur that is extremely distracting and totally unaesthetic, what do you want ? that I support because it's an insignificant object ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, your oppose is a totally valid way of expressing what you felt about the photo, it was the second part about diversity that sparked the discussion. Please don't mix them up. --Cart (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think we should promote weak candidatures just because it's rare to see ordinary QIs nominated here ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and some other consider this a weak nom, I and some other consider this a strong candidate. Opinions differ, just like on any other nom. Some like the contrasting dof and surfaces, others don't. Some think white cars are ok, some don't. It's all a matter of taste. --Cart (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, flaws... -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW, there is no wall in this photo, that is the rim of the table, kind of like this. --Cart (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cart, our selection is most peculiar and this does have consequences on how images get judged. Most of the world's professional-level photography consists of famous or beautiful people doing things, or cultural and social events. Yet that makes up a tiny proportion of our image bank and a negligible proportion of Commoner-taken photography. The photographic areas where FP photographers are inexperienced, such as professional food and portrait photography, also tend to be the areas where reviewers are most critical, and offer the most ridiculous nit-picking rationales for oppose. So while our guidelines do not limit what we promote, there is very much a bias towards safe well-trodden subjects that reviewers are comfortable with, and a disinclination towards the unfamiliar. Just look at the FP category for this: "Objects / other". We don't really know what box to put this in. Many here lack the tools to judge the unfamiliar and I suggest expanding the photographic experience with some books or visiting a gallery. This is a problem for the project, because we lack good photos of everyday things. Many of our nominations get "wow" from the photographer being fortunate enough to be standing in front of something amazing and simply pressing a button on their expensive cameras. Much harder to get "wow" for the craft of photography itself. And it is a problem if it discourages folk. We recently had some food photos that failed that were simply head and shoulders above the sort of image anyone here is taking. A reviewer, who knows nothing about taking such photos, can of course point at our guidelines and complain about blown highlights or focus. And so we continue to fail to attract any professional level food photographers. We have no shortage of church interiors or glaciated mountains.... -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a long theory just because no wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion did not evolve from the "no wow" that was ok, but from your assertion that the selection of FPs is already diverse enough. I think you realize that but you only wanted a clever last comment, and I suspect one will follow this too. ;-) --Cart (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, lol

-- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Richardson quote is, like many quotes, too simplistic. (Jimbo's "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" is bullshit when you think about it to any level). It also reflects the experience of a privileged (white, male, western and commissioned by National Geographic) photographer. I really hope, Basile, that you are not for a moment suggesting that Commons FP shouldn't include great photos of mundane subjects. I think, rather, you are just fond of arguing. -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basile Morin, what on earth are you up to? Your conduct on this nom with moving another user's post and undoing undos are beginning to look like pure disruptions. You are trying my patience. --Cart (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Probably Cart is upset. We had Colin's interference who was not respecting the indentation. I just moved the text at the bottom of the page per [1] and [2]. Cart reverted me, I reverted her. Please don't mess up with the chronology. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Cart is not upset, Cart is tired of your too frequent antics on nominations. Just make that last comment you like so much and please stop. --Cart (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous. Now please everybody keep the chronology as it is. If you want to reply, just write after, respect the queue -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile has moved my comment from the location where it made sense, to the top level where it appears I am creating some new topic of conversation. This problem with Basile has been discussed before, with examples, and he doesn't listen. Now he has moved on from simply being argumentative for the sake of it, to being disruptive for the sake of it, so it is time to stop feeding this childish attention-seeking behaviour and unwatch. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't make sense where it was written, for the good reason Cart replied first, and I planned to reply to Cart. Not someone else pushing everyone for imposing their voice through illegitimate ways. There are conventions here, and politeness, above all. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thanks for taking unordinary pictures of ordinary objects. But I find the top right white corner distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: table edge distracts. Depth of field is photographer's choice, but I would prefer all of the dummy to be in focus. Charles (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~I withdraw my nomination~~ I don't know why I even try, from now on only mainstream nominations since that is all you guys want. --Cart (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was just about to vote support and noticed at the last second that you withdrew. I like it. Keep up the good work. -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, that would be a shame. Even when I don’t support your more creative nominations, I enjoy seeing them here. For me you hit the mark much more often than you miss it, and even if I don’t find any wow in a nomination I appreciate the effort to come up with ideas for creative new compositions. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cmao20, I know there are those who share your point of view about me and my odd noms, but I have finally grown tired of being the dancing bear around here. Sometimes I have felt like just bellowing "Are you not entertained!?"; so I'll settle for a more normal/quiet life now. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to support this nomination. And I really like the way you are. Please don't be discouraged. Warmly, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B2Belgium, Cmao20, and Frank Schulenburg: with Cart's agreement (off-wiki), I'm taking over responsibility for the nomination. Feel free to continue voting. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and how color is handled. I also think the falloff of sharpness works well for keeping the focus on the main subject of the image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose Per Yann sorry--Booth sift 00:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the juxtapositions: the regularity and linearity of the wood with the curvy pacifier, and the brighter colors of the pacifier with the subdued earth tones of the wood. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles--Ermell (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moedig om de geijkte wegen te verlaten en al die kritiek te doorstaan.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: while technically excellent and very pleasant to look at, it lacks wow. --СССР (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Oppose this because the composition can't match the superior technical quality. My two main problems with it as is are: 1) the positive (rising) diagonals don't fit the mood of the image. It's an easy fix with a horizontal flip. 2) Seems to me a bigger problem is actual composition. Neil Oseman wrote a much better article than what I could articulate, but I'm trying to use this with my wide shooting lately and it indeed yields superior results. Took the liberty to make some quick changes to your image considering his insights, see here: File:Forgotten pacifier on a table in Röe gård cafe alt.jpg. All of the above are in my humblest opinion of course. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- KennyOMG, I mostly agree with your linked article, except where he tries to suggest a new rule and then contradicts himself. The key messages I think are "You could draw any grid you wanted and find some shots [] that matched it" and Ansel Adams: "The so-called rules of photographic composition are [] invalid, irrelevant and immaterial". Many experts complain that these rules are harmful (once a beginner has learned not to stick the subject in the centre all the time) as they limit creativity, which is exactly what you've been creatively experimenting with here. Where you stick an object changes the tension and balance wrt other objects, the background and the frame, and I think there are occasions where the desired tension and balance could place any object just about anywhere. The idea there are four spots or lines that work for all subjects is a bit like the camera exposing for 18% gray: not a terrible place to start, but not a creative one either. -- Colin (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support would prefer a different aspect ratio (like 2:3) but nonetheless excellent (even without the perfect description). --MB-one (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Credit-cards.jpg, not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 16:25:43

Info Too small, no wow, unsharp and blurred (Original nomination and previous delist nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delist. These cards are photographed from an angle so I'd expect only some of the cards to be in focus. This is a photograph, not computer generated art. I like a focus stacked photo as much as the next person, but not everything on Commons needs to be focus stacked. This isn't a simple image to photograph, to get the background perfectly white, and I'm certainly not uploading a photo of my bank cards onto Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colin -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why we need to delist this one, I wouldn't have nominated it--Booth sift 00:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination. --Cayambe (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only because we have no better replacements on offer; although I do think one could be made. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, Daniel :-) Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nomination.--Vulp here 04:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others above. Yann (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colin --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colin — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 6 delist, 9 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Boothsift 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Empis tesselata male (aka).jpg, not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 16:36:54

Info Very small, way below current insect FP standards (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still a good picture, though. Should we be delisting good pictures because they're small? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we just stop with the constant stream of delist nominations please. This isn't our focus. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If size is everything about FP, maybe we should operate a bot to automatically delist all images below 2MP, but IMHO it's not all about size. -- Eatcha (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question did the rules allow smaller images back then? Seven Pandas (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Simply too small unfortunately. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no good reason to delist a good picture just because we no longer promote images of this size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is fine--Booth sift 00:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hockei (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Vulp here 04:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others above. Yann (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep Of course the resolution is small, but the fly is less than half an inch in size, and this means that a nearly 1 megapixel image with good sharpness is in fact pretty great detail. Of course it wouldn't pass today but honestly I think it probably should on the basis that the amount of detail captured is actually very high. Cmao20 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real reason for delist.--Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 delist, 10 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Boothsift 17:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common blue damselfly (Enallagma cyathigerum) male lateral.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 06:58:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created and uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 06:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 06:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, common damselfly. We have many other similar quality at QI and some nice FPs e.g. File:Enallagma cyathigerum 8(loz).jpg. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nom, but I agree with Colin. Charles (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Per Charles--Booth sift 18:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter-Gabriel-2011I2.jpg (delist) edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2019 at 01:27:11

Info Dark scribbles can be seen in this image, especially when zoomed in, as well as these strange forms in the upper right. This image wasn't photoshopped very well. (Original nomination)
Delist -- 100cellsman (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support replacing by File:Peter-Gabriel-2011.jpg, but not a delist. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what "dark scribbles" 100cellsman sees (I can see something if I increase the brightness a lot). But comparing with File:Peter-Gabriel-2011 (original).jpg it is clear the distracting background has been Photoshopped out without any skill. This is visible round his hair and a chunk has been taken out of his left cheek. With all the variants and confusion in the original nomination, I wonder if this was overlooked. The other photo Yann links is another incompetent Photoshop job of the same source image, this time attempting to brighten and colour balance a photo lit by stage lights. It is completely blown in many areas, and a false impression of what the stage-lit concert looked like. The nominated photo is used on Wikipedia and is a fine image other than the bad Photoshopping. I wonder if one of our own photographers here, with better skills than simply painting with a black brush, could fix the image based on the original. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You talking to me?

--Cart (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, I had a go myself. I uploaded over the top as I don't think the changes are controversial. -- Colin (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Info Colin Ok, since the hairs are tinted by the lights it is almost impossible to separate them from the background. I opted for another solution since a concert photo was requested. I left the different versions in the file history in case one of those is preferred. It's there, do with it as you like. --Cart (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop has some ability to "decontaminate" colours but I'm not expert enough with it. Even if the background was originally black, his hairs will have a coloured glow from stage lighting -- and we are perhaps more forgiving of this rim-light effect with artificial scenes than outdoors, say. I think my efforts are an improvement on the original attempt. For most purposes, such as a Wikipedia thumbnail, I think the lack of any distracting colour background is useful. -- Colin (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I fixed the issues raised. -- Colin (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

looks good now! thank you! 100cellsman (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman, if you are happy that this no longer needs delisted, you can withdraw the nomination now (see instructions page). -- Colin (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Cmao20 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no issues with the image now, please withdraw the nomination. 100cellsman (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@100cellsman: Are you not able to withdraw by yourself? --Booth sift 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: I guess not! I guess I'm thinking more about the regular Featured Article process. 100cellsman (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@100cellsman: The proper procedure is also that you, the nominator, just place {{withdraw}} at the bottom of this nom and sign it. Couldn't be easier! :-) --Cart (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination 100cellsman (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venice Carnival - Masked Lovers (2010).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2019 at 04:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Frank Kovalchek, uploaded by NunoAgostinho, nominated by Yann (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, and I like the colors. -- Yann (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's like one of those photos camera manufacturers are so fond of in their brochures to show the quality of the camera. :) --Cart (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply gorgeous orange and yellow hues. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite excellent, and captures the ambience of the carnival. Cmao20 (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Ahmad^talk 14:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:New York City at night HDR.jpg (delist) edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 19:35:18

Info This isn't the only photo of a nighttime New York City skyline and it isn't the best either. It survived one past delist request, however that was a delist and replace with a new version.(Original nomination) (Delist Nomination in April 2008)
Delist -- Booth sift 19:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Really? It's not perfect by any means, but I still like this picture very much. For me it has plenty of wow-factor, although I do find it makes the city look faintly dystopian. The quality, while not current-FP level, is not bad, and neither is the resolution. Also, is it really a good idea to delist an image that made second place in POTY 2007? Cmao20 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cmao20 -- Eatcha (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you --Booth sift 07:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bradley Manning US Army.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2019 at 06:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by United States Army, uploaded by Clindberg, nominated by Yann (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info United States Army photograph of Bradley Manning, who is now named Chelsea Manning.
Support The portrait is quite good, and since she is now a world wide famous personality, this picture is featurable. -- Yann (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no reason for me, not special thing in this photo to be valued as featured. Olivier LPB (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She may be famous, but this reminds me of those bad school yearbook photos your Mom keeps torturing you with by showing to visiting friends and relatives. --Cart (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart: Of all those official portraits of US government and military people standing in front of the flag I've seen at FPC in the last couple of years, this might actualy be the worst. The blue background alone would be reason enough to oppose, as it collides with pretty much everything else in the frame. So: potentially a good candidate for VI, but no chance for FP from my side. --El Grafo (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Cmao20 (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Ahmad^talk 16:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others--Booth sift 17:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. The turquoise background is an assault to the viewer’s eye. Sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 21:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. His photo is nothing special. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Death Valley Artists Palette.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2019 at 16:26:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by ThomasLendt - uploaded by ThomasLendt - nominated by ThomasLendt -- ThomasLendt (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ThomasLendt (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see what you were going for, and I like it - with the different layers of coloured rocks, orange-red in the background, grey in the middle and yellow-gold in the foreground. An interesting natural phenomenon. That said, I can't shake the impression that it's a tiny bit lacking in contrast, and that the shadows should be darker than they are. Cmao20 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me this is the kind of image with moderate wow factor that I might support if the technical quality were perfect. But the sky has weird artifacts and is a little too cyan-colored, and resolution/sharpness isn't the highest. I echo some of Cmao's comments. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others also please add a category on your noms @ThomasLendt: --Booth sift 07:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Potential FP. But please fix the sky and add proper categories. For now Neutral. --MB-one (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd like to see what it looks like with more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for input ThomasLendt (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cumbre Nueva - Cloudfall 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 06:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very right side is quite blurry and all the trees are leaning. I would suggest to crop that out.--Ermell (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks --Llez (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive Charles (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular phenomenon. Looks like a surrealist sea wave -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better, thank you. Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not the sharpest panorama, overall, but in this case, I don't care. Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support----Fischer.H (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fascinating phenomenon but unfortunately the tree that blocks the view spoils it for me. -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't really care about some slight flaws, that's an incredible sight. Cmao20 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought only Table Mountain did that. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An exemplary case of the right person at the right place at the right time, equipped with the right camera, and taking time to find a site where to carefully take shots of a short-lived phenomenon. Wish I was there. Impressive! --Franz van Duns (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saliwangan Sabah Diesel-lokomotive-6105-01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2019 at 12:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created & uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An ugly locomotive made beautiful through an evocative and well-composed photo. Cmao20 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MB-one (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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