Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2017

File:Fuente en Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 227-229 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 08:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Fountain in the Old City of Baku, capital of Azerbaijan. All by me, Poc o² 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. The blacks are a little bit noisy and the crop at the bottom almost too tight, but still acceptable. -- -donald- (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's some striping/bands at the edge of the rear building, which I think is due to the HDR merge. Perhaps one frame can be used here and merged by hand at that location, or some adjustment to the blending tools? -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: I improved that area with some editing. I also used the opportunity to improve the crop at bottom and on the left (that helped to center the image). I also darkened a bit the shadows as the sky was a bit too bright Poc o² 18:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very impressive and I'm sure you'll solve the issue mentioned by Colin (which isn't a big deal imo anyway) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Beautiful. And if you decide to de-noise the sky (which I think is not necessary), please keep the stars, as it's nice and impressive to see almost untraily stars in a picture that has this much light in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support More nice combination of warm and cool. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bottom left corner is cut off. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint KoH, it's fixed now Poc o² 11:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:San Francisco Bay Bridge Western Span at night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 07:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 07:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 07:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Raw file available at [1]. dllu (t,c) 07:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Solid but tempered Support - The bridge and the reflected light are great! My one caveat is that I don't like all those star trails, and people who don't know about the chronic drawbacks of night photography will wonder what all those apparent meteors are. The best solution would be to make all of them look like discrete stars, but I don't know if you want to spend the time for that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The "500 rule" for avoiding star trails is to expose for no longer than "500 / focal length" (based on full-frame camera). For the 20mm lens here, that would be 25s, and this photo is 30s which is only slightly more. But that rule is for the trails to be noticeable when viewing the whole picture, rather than avoiding any trailing at 100% (which is harder with today's high resolution sensors). Also you get longer trails the further out from the pole star you go. Looking at the whole picture on a high DPI monitor, I can just see that the stars on the left are tiny stroke rather than dots, but only if I look closely. I don't think anyone will think these are meteors, which produce much longer streaks. -- Colin (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture but per Ikan. You could also get rid of the stars altogether... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't understand the constant star trailing on night pictures. If someone doesn't know they are free to google "night picture lines" or something and learn about them. Or Not, whatever. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice West Coast complement to Julian's photo of that bridge in South Carolina we featured last month. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a shame about the stars and the noisy sky, but it's great composition. Charles (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel! I don't mind the slight star trailing - for how small and sparse the stars are, that's much preferable to high-ISO noise throughout the entire image. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 02:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PtrQs (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Not the strongest technically, with large (albeit faint) blobs of flare and some noise in the sky, but excellent wow factor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juvenile Nubian ibex in Mitzpe Ramon (40409).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 21:23:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
Info created and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 21:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rhododendrites has been out travelling. This trip will not go unnoticed at FPC. :) (check out his uploads!) Fresh, very nice light and colors. --cart-Talk 21:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Congratulations! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. This one was a good sport, staying put (more or less) while I got up a bit higher to where I could see more of the makhtesh background. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Very nice work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 02:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. There's one very small dark spot near the upper right corner. What is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes there is, I annotated the image. Charles (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it was it is gone now. I just assume they have birds and bugs in Israel too. ;) --cart-Talk 18:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now nobody will believe this captured the moment just before that spaceship abducted the ibex... thanks a lot. Yeah, I have to presume it was a bird/bug/critter. There are a few images taken with the same lens moments apart from each other, and I don't see the speck in those. Ah well. Seems to be resolved. :) Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo. Charles (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely handled background. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)

File:Dor blad van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) na langdurige motregen in maart 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 06:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Fagaceae.
Info Withered leaf of beech (Fagus sylvatica) after protracted drizzle in March. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The drops hanging off make the difference for me. Such a perfect capture ... I can smell it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 22:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kloster Paulinzella, Thüringen, 360x180, 170316, ako (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 06:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info 360° panorama of the remains of the abbey church of Paulinzella abbey in Thuringia, Germany. The church was built from 1106 on, today there are only ruins left. It's one of the most important romanesque buildings in Germany. Please have a look at it in the 360° panorama viewer before voting! Created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Code (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Valuable and fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great work--Ermell (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great motif, outstanding execution --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Nice but the sunlit part at the top is overexposed, and there is a noticeable straight stitch line at the top due to varying exposures. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Neither do I see any overexposure (except of course the two little windows in the wall on the right - the sun is directly behind them and what do you expect to see when you shoot straigt in the sun), nor can I find a "stitch line". The light conditions did not change between the frames. Please give me a hint. --Code (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the overexposure as an image note; large parts of it are at 255 in one or more channels, and significant detail has been lost. The line is visible only in the 360 viewer, where the left edge connects to the right edge (of the flat image). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Well then, I've spent the last four hours working on a new version without any over- or underexposure. You can find the result here but I don't think it's very convincing. The new file has a perfect histogram but it looks grey, flat and not very appealing. So I'm not going to replace this "overexposed" version with the new version. I think in this case it's better to accept some brighter parts. A perfect histogram doesn't always make a perfect picture. Regarding the stitching line you saw it's obviously a problem with the panellum viewer. As you can see here the sky is created from a single frame so there definitely can't be any problem with differently exposed frames or changing light situations. Sorry, but all in all I don't see anything I should or even could improve here. --Code (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, in fact, do think that the new version is superior. Yes, there is a little bit of HDR-ness to it, but it looks as natural as could possibly fit on my computer monitor. Not only is the overexposure fixed, but even the line in the sky is less visible. By the way, I think the line is real: I downloaded the original version, did a basic B&W conversion (to make luminosity values easier to compare), and opened it up in Photoshop. If you compare the two sides about 300-600 pixels from the top, the left edge has values 174-176, while the right edge has values 177-179. The 360 viewer is an accurate rendition of this difference, as you can see that it is darker on the right than on the left (left edge is on the right of the right edge when you join them together). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you explain the line if it goes straight through a single frame? The question is serious, I really would like to know it. I'd be happy to repair it if only I could but I simply don't know how. --Code (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama software do all kinds of weird things when stitching/blending, so it's perfectly conceivable it lightened one side (after cutting it) to blend better. I also think the new version is an insult to reality, completely flat. Having said that why not just mask the problematic parts with a version where green/red are not clipped? Would also like to ask why are there white outlines everywhere around the bricks? Sharpening? -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KennyOMG: Thanks for your feedback. It's kind of weird indeed. I already thought about masking the brighter parts but my photoshop skills are really bad and the equirectangular projection makes it somewhat difficult to properly retouch the details in the upper part of the picture. I don't have much time today, maybe I can give it another try tomorrow evening. --Code (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not seeing the overexposure -- Thennicke (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 22:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome) Wide view.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 21:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 02:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pofka (talk),welcome back --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LivioAndronico ^(talk), studies consumes too much time and often almost all of it... :D

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oasis in the Draa Valley.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 13:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but quality issues (grainy, lack of details) --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1; I also find it just not vivid enough to wow me, perhaps because the sun is not out. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Though the image quality could be better -- Thennicke (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support --Miha (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Open wing position of Papilio crino, Fabricius,1793 – Common Banded Peacock WLB.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 15:25:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info Open wing position of Papilio crino, (Common Banded Peacock) created by Sayan Sanyal - uploaded by Sayan Sanyal - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zeetendra (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image present visible oversharpening (resulting in noise because sharpen software filter) and motion blur. Also it need white balance. --The Photographer 16:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There doesn't seem to be any definition/sharpness, and I don't know what processing has been done. Does seem very green too. 17:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This vote was done by Charlesjsharp who forgot to sign --The Photographer 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

True. Charles (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wings corner are blurry. ‍‍‍‍~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red-crowned woodpecker (Melanerpes rubricapillus rubricapillus) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 16:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Deserving candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A tad too bright (highlights on the breats feathers), but then again the sun is strong in the Caribbean. --cart-Talk 19:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 00:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, with cart's caveat. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Charles, I'd like to request for you to add the category for the plant, as it's highly visible and takes up more space than the woodpecker. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to Ivan, but I haven't a clue what it is! Anyone? Betel/Arica? Charles (talk)

(My name isn't Ivan. Ikan Kekek, anyway, isn't my real name. It's the name of a Malaysian fish [ikan meaning fish] and a children's song I learned when I lived in Malaysia in the 70s.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops!! Charles (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal; I just thought I'd tell you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Second marriage of S.M.I. D. Pedro I.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 14:45:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by All by -- The Photographer 14:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you put the location of the painting? Which gallery/museum/private collection it is? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks --The Photographer 13:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is that shadow at the top part of the painting? Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it form part of the painting. There are anothers versions without this shadown, however, not the same original painting . Thanks for your question --The Photographer 09:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bahía de Doha, Catar, 2013-08-04, DD 07.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 04:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info Traditional Qatar boat in Doha Bay, Qatar with the city skyline in the background. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Ceci Sierra (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, thank you Ceci for this nom! Poc o² 08:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, too hazy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't know why people are complaining about the haze. The haze is clearly an artistic choice to separate the boat from the background. Moreover, the traditional boat is an interesting juxtaposition against the super modern skyscrapers in the back. However, the image size is a bit small, with very few pixels on the boat. dllu (t,c) 07:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dllu: Perhaps if it were less hazy, if the skyscrapers weren't so pale, the contrast would work better. As it is, the colors overall are very weak, and not in a way that works. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too hazy etc. Charles (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Some haziness would be fine, but the skyline is just a bit too hazy for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, Charlesjsharp, and Ikan Kekek: What you are actually asking for is not feasible. If the skyline in the background would be clear, then the file would be deleted as it will probably happen here, what actually just drives me crazy. Poc o² 07:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hear you, Diego! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's terrible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like it. Maybe give it a couple ticks' worth of the "dehaze" slider in LR and see what happens? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monasterio de Sanahin, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 44-46 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 04:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Arches in the interior of the church of Holy Mother of God Narthex within the Sanahin Monastery complex, Lori Province, Armenia. Sanahin literally translates from Armenian as "this one is older than that one", presumably representing a claim to having an older monastery than the neighbouring Haghpat Monastery. The Armenian Apostolic monastery was built in the 10th century in Armenian style and has become a tourist magnet. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Ceci Sierra (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, thank you again Poc o² 08:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A geocode should be added and the description could be somewhat more precise. I would support it then. --Code (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Code: Done. Regarding the description I'd like though to add that all my FPs have a long description at least in 2 languages, as I always do as intro of all FPs I launch (or even those launched by others involving my pictures). This is by far not the standard, but it would be indeed nice if that would be the case. Poc o² 17:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Regierungsviertel, Berlin-Mitte, 170325, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 04:11:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Governmental district of Berlin: On the left the Reichstag building. On the right next to it the east side of the Paul Löbe building in Berlin, facing the river Spree, during the blue hour. What I especially like about this picture (apart from the great light situation) is the "old vs. new" contrast between the Reichstag and the Paul-Löbe-Haus. All by me. -- Code (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome blue hour shot. Colors, composition, everything's excellent. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Outstanding, including the stars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good--Ermell (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shame about the flags. Charles (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, nice one. – Lucas ^T 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colors. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:84+35 German Army Sikorsky CH-53G Super Stallion ILA Berlin 2016 21.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 09:07:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info German Army Sikorsky CH-53G Super Stallion (reg. 84+35, sn V65-33) at ILA Berlin Air Show 2016. C/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 09:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 09:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Not so impresive for FP. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support another great job --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very dynamic, and good sharpness for a panned photo. dllu (t,c) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what makes this special. Certainly not the sky. And I don't like the nose-down position of the aircraft. Charles (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is a nose-down position a bad thing for a helicopter? That means it is flying fast/accelerating. — Julian H.^✈ 19:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not flying fast, but yes it is accelerating. I just think it looks awkward as a photo. Charles (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I quite like the nose-down/accelerating stance, which creates a much more dynamic and engaging photo than would a perfectly level helicopter just cruising along. The panning technique is excellent, as always, and while I suppose there's nothing "special" about the sky, there's nothing wrong with it, either. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good action photo. Although I can't see a helicopter in the nose down attack mode without hearing the Ride of the Valkyries in the background. --cart-Talk 09:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nose-down is not a helicopter attack mode and this isn't an attack machine anyway! Charles (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but I have a vivid imagination. :) --cart-Talk 19:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Wagnerian imagination is really worrying ;) Charles (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a Coppolan (if that's an adjective) imagination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(it is an adjective now. ) ...and you are right. I'd recognize a Coppolan work anywhere, but that music is the only Wagner I know thanks to said film maker. ;) --cart-Talk 09:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

digression - Cart, you've never heard any of the overtures (preludes), the Liebestod, any of the other music from the Ring? I have to be in the right mood for Wagner, as his music can be very intense and emotionally draining, but in my opinion, he's one of the all-time great composers, up there in inspiration and structural mastery with people like Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven - the lot of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, for personal reasons, my choice, I've steared clear of Wagner. The reasons for that is not something I wan't to air here in public (and I'm dead serious here). There is so much more classic music to listen to. --cart-Talk 13:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is. And you wouldn't be the only one to have personal, ethical or philosophical reasons not to want to listen to (or in some cases, play) Wagner. I won't pursue the tangent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done, good dynamism. – Lucas ^T 16:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shoot, well executed. I know how difficult is take pictures of flying objects and especificly helicopters. I'm sure that you are the best flying airplane/objects in commons. We need support more works like this. Thanks for your nomination. --The Photographer 14:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image... something that's really quite difficult when photographing choppers.--Dura-Ace (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Atlantoxerus getulus - Morro Jable 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 17:06:23 (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) 17:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. I prefer File:Atlantoxerus getulus - Fuerteventura.jpg, though, and think it should be nominated as well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't stand out from other pictures of rodents for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's sort of half way to a head shot, and I'm not convinced by the composition or background. Also, the nose isn't really sharp enough for me. Charles (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:PIA20736 - Glowing Gullies in Kaiser Crater Dunes.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 08:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and University of Arizona - uploaded by User:PhilipTerryGraham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The second of two more HiRISE images for your consideration - a false-color view of carbon dioxide frost eroding the sand dunes in Kaiser crater, Mars, a seasonal pattern that occurs in the region. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one for the Mars abstracts collection. --cart-Talk 10:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart again --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Looks like taken in another planet. -- Pofka (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Ugandan kobs (Kobus kob thomasi) female and calf.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 20:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info A Ugandan kob appears on the coat of arms of Uganda, where this youngster is growing up. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support They almost look like they knew what they were doing. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Strike a pose." --cart-Talk 08:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - They're looking at you! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you find that what most girls do, Ivan? Charles (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 20:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View to Iron Gate, Danube.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 16:10:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for how it reminds me of the landscape of the Hudson Highlands near where I live. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much midday haze on the landscape in the background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH - middleground and background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since that haze is often seen in the Hudson Highlands, it doesn't really bother me here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Definetly not outstanding enough for FP --Milseburg (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely not, woman ruins the composition. Charles (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --cart-Talk 09:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again, this picture should be taken during the golden hour to make wow --Miha (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Woman (tourist?) & midday haze ruined it. -- Pofka (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Navio negreiro - Rugendas 1830.jpg (delist), not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 12:52:11

Info This weekend I take another better version picture and maybe it could be a better version (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- The Photographer 12:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both pictures as FP Ezarateesteban 13:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, your version includes the frame but looks oversharpened to me, the current FP is easier on the eyes. – Lucas ^T 16:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:CG Heart.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 07:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created and uploaded by DrJanaOfficial - nominated by Buffaboy -- Buffaboy (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I first came across this animation, I had to take a look at it here on Commons. I was surprised at the level of detail put into the mechanics of the heart's motion. I can't say I've ever seen an animation of this caliber before. It illustrates the mechanics very well and complements the articles it is displayed on -- Buffaboy (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Doesn't the minimum of 2 MP also apply to animated gifs? I suspect it does, and in that case, this wouldn't be eligible for FP consideration, but in either case, this could be an interesting Valued Image nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered the same when I initially read the guidelines. It said animations aren't included, which I somewhat assumed this was, but I am not sure. Nevertheless, if it is up to par, the creator apparently has a higher resolution copy here, but it has technical issues. –Buffaboy (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Commons:Featured pictures/Animated GIFs are well below 2MP due to the format. A large GIF can lose a lot of sharpness when viewed in thumb or smaller size. Take a look at this in smaller size than full and you'll probably see the distortions. --cart-Talk 09:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am not sure if they accept animated gif for FP, but if they do I'll be glad to see this one as an Featured Picture for sure. -- DrJanaOfficial (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the educational value of this is far better that our current FP GIF of heart motion since it is easier for a layman to understand the motion. I also know that there are those who would like to see GIFs gone in favor of videos, but in this case it works well since the heart does its beating motion in a cycle and we don't have to press play each time to see it beat. --cart-Talk 10:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per information and remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. -- Pofka (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 11:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Volcanes de lodo, Buzau, Rumanía, 2016-05-29, DD 34.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 07:16:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Mud flow out of a Berca Mud volcano, a geological and botanical reservation located close to Berca, Buzău County, Romania. The phenomenon is caused due to gases that erupt from 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) deep towards the surface, through the underground layers of clay and water, they push up underground salty water and mud, so that they overflow through the mouths of the volcanoes, while the gas emerges as bubbles. All by me, Poc o² 07:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 07:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the blur in the mud stream motion blur because it's moving a lot in 1/60 of a second? If so, perhaps that info should be appended to the file description, and I would support the photo. If not, what's causing the blur and might you be able to fix it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, yes, the blur in the middle of the channel is due to the moving flow and that is the spark of this picture. The flow occured in waves, it was quite for approx 20 seconds and it moved for about 1 second. If I had used a higher shutter speed or taken pictures during the quiet phases, it would look everywhere sharp, but that wasn't my purpose. Poc o² 09:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought at first it was another Mars satellite photo. Daniel Case (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 03:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 11:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 20:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BustoManuelBelgrano-TandilArg-mar2017.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 14:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bust to Manuel Belgrano, Tandil, Argentina

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 14:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 14:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, horizontal perspective correction needs. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see any FP qualities here. Charles (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, not FP to me, sorry Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't support this at QI (well, because it needed some technical corrections), and it's definitely not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thsanks for the comments, I'll try with another shot Ezarateesteban 01:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bow of a wrecked fishing boat on Grötö.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 11:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Shipwrecks
Info All by me -- cart-Talk 11:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 11:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much hull and I'm not keen on bowsprit (if that's what it is). Charles (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a bowspit and if you take a photo of a hull, you usually end up with a lot of hull. :). --cart-Talk 15:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice perspective, nice lines, combinates good with the blue sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really special. Yann (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not the most groundbreaking image ever made, but it's a unique perspective and makes me want to take a closer look. Not sure how you can have too much hull in a picture of a boat but there we are... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No FP qualities here. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 20:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the hull, it's a great picture . I like the way the barnacled part is coterminous with the shadow and the clear part is in the light. This is one of those images where the composition makes you want to find out more. How did this boat get here? Can it sail again? There is also a nice juxtaposition of the textured hull close to the camera and the fuzzier land and seascape in the distance. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The boat is too large for it to be a normal picture and too small for it to be a true closeup. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty much per King. I'd like to see a photo from a bit further away. The boat takes up an uncomfortable amount of the picture frame for me; I'd like to see a little more sky above it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is one of the whole boat, but I doubt it is FP material. --cart-Talk 11:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I was going for how big and looming, albiet with nice lines, the hull of a boat can feel when you see it on land. Obvoiusly I managed to do just that a bit too much for some users. :) Oh well, boats always have a hard time here, I'll be back with something that may be closer to what most of the FPC gang likes soon. Stay tuned... --cart-Talk 11:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:A swan in Lake Ohrid.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 07:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info created by IvanStojmirov - uploaded by IvanStojmirov - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The swan is a beautiful animal, but this picture does not stand out among our many other photos of swans. The technical quality is mediocre --- the image is not sharp and there is a large amount of chromatic aberrations. The composition is peaceful but this is common among photos of swans. We have over 100 QIs of swans, such as, File:Poertschach Johannes-Brahms-Promenade Cygnus olor 01032015 0249.jpg (much higher resolution and free of CA). dllu (t,c) 08:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per dllu, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per dllu. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Park (Weseler Straße) -- 2017 -- 9204.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 05:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --RWMuc (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question How strict is the '50 edits rule'? This was the 45th edit by RWMuc. --cart-Talk 16:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While this composition and lighting does the daffodils more favors, only the bottom center one is in focus, and the top one has noticeable CA. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. I think it is better to withdraw the nomination. --XRay ^talk 07:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luquin - Candado 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 16:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this would do well on a Photo Challenge on locks, and the composition is good, I don't feel it is exceptional enough for FP wow. -- Colin (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For some reason, this could be a nice FP. The image quality is fine and the item is very well depicted. The theme is also new and not a clichéd one like the numerous FPs depicting cameras.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I'll wait for the Lock Photo Challenge... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Korab 10.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 12:03:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Anunnakey - uploaded by Anunnakey - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support It might be a little grainy, but I can't tell if that's just how it's supposed to be. Other than that, I do like the gradations. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This scene doesn't wow me. Yellow/brown, no mountaintop, no clear view of a valley. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice a strange bright fringe along the crest of the ridge in the midground where the warm hues meet cool (I'm having a difficult time articulating it, but if you look closely, you'll probably be able to see what I mean). Is this some kind of layer blending artifact? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I would also enjoy the further view of the valley, however the play of colors and interesting lines really caught my eye here. -- Pofka (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mountain Cabin Laterns von marte marte Architekten 5.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 16:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Plani -- Plani (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Plani (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first sight I thought it was a great photo but after having a closer look I have to say that it isn't: There are several dust spots in the sky. Then there are lots of lens flares of different colours and the whole picture suffers from diffraction softness caused by f/22. I don't really understand the camera settings. If the photographer wanted a longer exposure (maybe to keep people out of the picture) he should have reduced ISO (why ISO 400?) instead of choosing a smaller aperture. Also, there's lot of CA on the ridge of the mountain on the left and at the branches of the trees on the right. It's really a pity as I'm normally the biggest fan of modern architecture, mountains and blue hour shots and this picture is compound of all these elements. --Code (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Code the small aperture may have been chosen to get stars from the light, though it isn't entirely successful here. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally f/11 should be more than enough to get such stars. But of course I don't know much about Nikon lenses. --Code (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Code, a pity! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support nice composition --Miha (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is just not at FP standard plus the lake is obscured by the building, meaning the surrounding landscape isn't the most interesting. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Code (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Prowincja Szirak, Giumri, Pomnik Wardana Mamikoniana (01).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 15:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Halavar - uploaded by Halavar - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Vardan Mamikonian statue. Gyumri, Shirak Province, Armenia.
Support -- Kasir (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know anything about this statue, but it looks as if this is the back side. Charles (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Face not sharp and in shadow. And agree with Charles that this does not look like the best angle. Also, the whole statue File:Saint Vartan statue, Gyumri.jpg includes other men. So... incomplete. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:ADAC-Zentrale, Munich, March 2017-04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 08:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info The main office complex of the ADAC in Munich was designed by Sauerbruch Hutton and opened in 2012. All by me, -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is so cool! Though I must admit that I read the heading too fast and wondered why AC/DC had a headquarter in Munich... --cart-Talk 09:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Well Cart, as the ADAC is vehemently opposed to speed limits on Autobahns, Highway to Hell could serve as an inofficial anthem for them --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the framing and how you handled the colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, interesting. --A.Savin 12:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, could you improve on the colour noise reduction? -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Colin, the color noise (particularly evident on the black areas of the building) needs to be reduced. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've reduced color noise as requested. The picture's much better now, thanks for the hint! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I like the other version without the tree even more. --Code (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, the #### tree... it's not that it wasn't there in the other version as well... at least until Photoshop did its ugly business... ;) The reason why I like this version better, tree or not, is that it appears a bit more balanced, with the framing being less intrusive on the composition. The tower's relative position also works better imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AIRPOWER16, Air to Air SK35C Draken.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 14:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Katsuhiko TOKUNAGA - uploaded by Tm - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer 14:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Previous nomination
Support -- The Photographer 14:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ¡Impresionante! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 21:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support again. - Revent^talk 23:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though this might be subtle to some people, of particular interest in this image is that you can see shock diamonds, but that they are disrupted due to what appears to be a fairly hard bank and pull up. - Revent^talk 04:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basotxerri. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this one I can get behind. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support dllu (t,c) 07:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality. Charles (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 14:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Galton box.webm, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 09:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Obs, this a ~4K video, click in source to see it in full resolution, created by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 09:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 09:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really cool to watch. It's like having one of those toys on you desk. I don't suppose there is any chance of fixing it so that the hands are not visible? --cart-Talk 10:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter thanks for the review, and... I can't, I really tried, however my computer couldn't handle the file, in PhotoShop is quite simple, although a bit laborious (60fps*7s 420 images), take the frames and put a black mask. In Primeire I'm not that familiar, what I tried, my pc also couldn't handle. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 11:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice box but as a video it has two significant flaws and two lesser flaws. First the operator's hands are visible and really distracting. Second the ceiling lamp is visible as the box is rotated, which is also distracting. Surely it is possible to rotate this box from horizontal to vertical without these distractions. As a minor point, while 16:9 is useful to have, most of the fame is black and so for many web purposes (including Wikipedia) a square crop would be much more useful and without waste. Also the lighting is uneven, with the bottom of the box rather dark. -- Colin (talk)

Thanks Colin for the review, I don't see the lamp as a significant flaw, as this occurs before the action starts. The hands are distractions, not that much as they are away darker than the object... but I couldn't handle, as said to Carter. About 16:9, well it's a free media, you can create your version, I'm busy as hell and upload video here is a parturition... I'll take a while to upload a squared version. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 12:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

long discussion

I think both significant flaws should have been avoided at filming stage, rather than trying to mask out something in post. Consider if a still photo had a picture of hands floating above the box, and a reflection of the lamp in the glass. It wouldn't be FP so don't see why a video should be either. FP is about getting those sort of things right. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin. you are assuming that I did this as a snapshot, that is not even close to the truth, this was a afternoon of filming, no, is not easy to remove the hands, and lamp, especially the hands, you can list ways to do, I'll tell why it can't be done, because I really try to handle in the action, and really tried to handle in post.

This is not a still photo, and should not be evaluated as a still. In the important frames the lamp is not in the frame.

As here:

not flaws here, but I don't see this as a FP.

This is not half impressive as in movement, and you are not take into account the EV of it. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 13:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "assuming it is a snapshot", but nor frankly do I think that 10s of footage is an "afternoon of filming", even if you include time taken to darken the room and arrange the subject. A very significant portion of the short video has these defects. Like a studio still, this is a short video with arranged lighting and position, so I don't think it unreasonable to expect all those 10s to be visually good. I don't really want to get into a discussion over what you feel was hard. The end result is a short studio video with significant flaws. -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin did you ever made a video from scratch?

Take a while to make 10s video...

And not a studio, this are the conditions:

And again not significant, as this do not affect the understanding of the main message, actually the flaws that you are pointing as majors, vanishes before the middle of the video... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 13:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plasma globe 23s.webm. No hands. No reflections in the glass globe. The conditions of the shoot are your problem, not something for FP to worry about. The beginning rotation sequence is not relevant to the mathematical model the device simulates, but a consequence of it not having a trap door mechanism for releasing the grains. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the candidature should take into account the conditions, I'm just showing that you are wrong
This was not a studio, and this took a while to be set-upped, the whole afternoon , things that you are saying without knowing...
No hands, no reflection, also: File:Clumsy wagon (IME-USP).webm, but a whole different situation, as your example, nothing related. I don't know what you wanted to show... Prove that you could remove the hands, give a way to do. the reflection I could remove, with a studio light, that I don't have. But again, do not interfere in the history, in your case, yes, the reflection and hands would be a huge interference, here.. not the case. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "studio" is the room, table, the lighting, the black background, where you set up an object to photograph. I didn't claim it was a professional photographic studio. None of us have one of them. I'm not trying to show/prove anything. You asked "did you ever make a video from scratch". I have. I'm unwatching this page now. -- Colin (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support One would wish for a smoother rotation at the beginning, but it makes its point. One day videos will be common enough that we will be able to promote a better one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this video, however, need edition to remove re-flexion, human iteration. Also the video cuts abruptly when the process has not yet finished, it seems to me something abrupt. Also, We need more information about this object like the Author (not the photographer) --The Photographer 19:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One possibility for an edit that wouldn't be so difficult, would be to cut the first couple seconds off and start fading in at about the time the reflection of the light passes the light part of the box (the top), just before the rotation is complete. The hands are minimally visible after that point. It would probably be best for the audio to be on a longer fade to avoid starting on a loud *knock*. From an overall video quality point of view, yes, ideally the rotation action would be there, too, and I think the filmmaker had the right idea starting with a view of the back, but encyclopedic value would still be there with the beginning cut. I would take a stab at it myself, but I only have Lightworks at the moment, and it doesn't seem to want to work with a webm. Just a thought. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joalpe (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - At first, I was going to support this nomination, but I think the opposers have meritorious arguments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, LVM -- 2017 -- 9343-7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 15:25:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 06:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another cool free image to be used on the cover of some corporation's annual report. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orazio Gentileschi - Danaë and the Shower of Gold - 2016.6 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 19:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info digital image courtesy of the Getty's Open Content Program. - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Multichill -- Multichill (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Multichill (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jane023 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't remember seeing this painting when I went to the Getty a number of years ago, but Getty takes great photographs of the works in their collection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 03:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:PIA21111 - Wind Carved Rock.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 08:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and University of Arizona - uploaded by User:PhilipTerryGraham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The first of two more HiRISE images for your consideration - a view of "yardangs", soft rock wind erosion heavily influenced by the area's prevailing wind direction, in Medusae Fossae on Mars. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Someday, we'll have higher-resolution images of this. Until then, this is a remarkable image of a truly unearthly scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good thing you wrote "rock" or we might have thought we had the first photo of the moulted skins of giant Mars lizards. ;) --cart-Talk 10:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Looks like some sort of special-purpose cardboard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing lines. -- Pofka (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Petrol station in Bénin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 17:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Ferdinand Reus, uploaded by Flickr upload bot, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture very much by the situation it describes. -- Yann (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 17:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 21:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Moving. The poor woman looks to me like she's about to cry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but documentary quality more than carries the day here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann, Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice bottles :-). --Karelj (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question It's oil or petrol? --The Photographer 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For motorbikes, so "gasolina". ;) Yann (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) --The Photographer 09:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon (50771).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 09:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Israel
Info created and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 09:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, some of the clouds are blown, but who cares. It is a stunning scene from Israel that makes me think of Doré's Bible Illustrations. The shape of the cloud and the crepuscular rays is emulated very well in the craggy boulders and sand below ("on earth as it is in heaven"). -- cart-Talk 09:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm wowed too -- Thennicke (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it's good to see that the shadows weren't brightened too much in post. This image is all about contrast. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support might look interesting in slightly overdone b&w, Salgado style...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...sort of like this then. (just kidding) ;) --cart-Talk 14:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I had played with a black and white version of this (and a couple others) in Lightroom, but didn't upload any because I tend to think there's limited use for b&w on Wikimedia sites. Since you mention it, though... File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon bw (50771).jpg. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since I think it works better in black and white. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have a slight preference for the black and white version (which is uncommon for me), but from an encyclopedic standpoint I do like that this version captures the purplish color of the quarry, which was -- if I recall correctly -- used for clay. It was abandoned, as the several other quarries in the makhtesh were required to do, when the land was legally preserved. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nor for me. Charles (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1--Ermell (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe it is a bit too dark since you can barely see some details, especially the ones in the center of image. As Daniel Case mentioned, black and white probably looks better. -- Pofka (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the crepuscular rays, and the shapes and textures of the rock quarry are quite interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version - B/W[edit]

Info Since there has been some calls for a black and white version, and Rhododendrites has been kind enough to provide one, I think an alt version is in order. 'Pinging' previous voters: Thennicke Martin Falbisoner Daniel Case. --cart-Talk 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problem with this version either; it is in fact even more Doré. --cart-Talk 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my !vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have a slight preference for the black and white version (see cmt above). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though you could emphasize the contrast even more, i.e. darken shadows and brighten highlights in the lower half the image - cf. Cart's version (except for the blown clouds/sun, of course). Btw., I wouldn't overestimate the importance of narrowly defined encyclopedic value here on FPC... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also generally dislike BW conversions, but it works well here -- Thennicke (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any benefit here in B&W. 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1 again.--Ermell (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Second choice. I prefer the contrast between the blue sky and red soil. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon bw (50771).jpg

File:Rockenstein (Rhön).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 19:19:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is too flat for me; the bottom third is all boring featureless snow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not bad compositionally but lacks contrast and has lots of JPEG compression artefacts in the sky. --Code (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinfonía de las Piedras, valle de Garni, Armenia, 2016-10-02, DD 33.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2017 at 22:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info These well-preserved basalt columns are known as "Symphony of the Stones" and are located in the Garni Gorge, near Yerevan, capital city of Armenia. The columns are visible because they were carved out by the Goght River. All by me, Poc o² 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, what a sight! A few areas might be a bit bright but I'm not bothered by them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KoH: I've reduced the hightlights Poc o² 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow there is! --cart-Talk 09:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support fascinating. Charles (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some CA on the fringe of the top stone on the left side. Could you please fix it?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril: Better now? Poc o² 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, now it's fine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil... But the midday light looks uninteresting and shadows are too harsh for me. --A.Savin 09:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although this geological phenomenon is amazing to look at, I agree with A.Savin regarding the lighting. In addition, there are some technical deficiencies. The camera's dynamic range is insufficient and has caused many blown highlights; lens flare has reduced contrast on the left side. Also, the left and right edges are not sharp even when viewing the image downsampled to 6 megapixels. dllu (t,c) 04:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St. Matthew's Anglican Church, Albury NSW.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 09:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info St. Matthew's Church, Albury.
Info All by me -- Thennicke (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is great and the church looks beautiful, but the angle, the perspective and the framing simply do not work for me. I also think that, from this angle, the other elements in the image are disturbing. I'd rather prefer an image with a front view of the church if that's physically possible. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kiril. Also, there are some blue blotches in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, and I would also note the CA on the top of the church steeple as well as the distortion. It looks like it was a result of perspective correction, but there are things we can do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 17:44:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is already a featured picture in English Wikipedia and is identical in terms of quality to other three pictures of the St. Peter and St. Paul's Church interior by Diliff, which already are Featured Pictures in Commons. I believe this one should also join his shiny "brothers". -- Pofka (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Remarkable handling of white and light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It should be a nomination set. BTW, Someone know Where is Diliff? --The Photographer 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Busy being a daddy. He does stop by and make a comment now and then, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daphne Lantier 20:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice seeing his work here again. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with The Photographer. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wtc-photo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 14:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aerial photo of World Trade Center ground zero, New York City, September 23th, 2001.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by NOAA, uploaded by Trevor MacInnis, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Aerial photo of World Trade Center ground zero, New York City, September 23th, 2001. A precedent nomination just failed by one vote: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial photo of WTC groundzero.jpg
Support I would rather choose the original, but I can add the cropped version as an alternative if needed. -- Yann (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I opposed this version last time, but I would rather have this featured than none at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very high-resolution photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original is fine. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed photo of a profoundly significant event. I prefer the uncropped version. dllu (t,c) 04:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's definitely one of the most iconic photos of ground zero, and has spawned alot of crops and alternate versions here on Commons alone. A recognisable photograph of a historically significant event at an incredible resolution and quality - strong support from me. -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the most amazing aerial images I've ever seen, especially considering its historical significance. I didn't know digital imaging at this resolution was feasible in 2001. WClarke 00:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:MosMetro Fonvizinskaya 01-2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 04:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another fantastic Moscow Metro station by A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 07:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks IK --A.Savin 12:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would probably work well in b/w, too. --Code (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Science fiction-like, nice symmetry. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I was hoping we'd see some of your latest Moscow metro/train station pics over here soon. This one is the best ... as Basotxerri suggests, you could probably add some Imperial stormtroopers to the scene and they wouldn't look out of place at all. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moscow's subway stations are beautiful. It reminds me of David Burdeny's series on them: [2]. dllu (t,c) 03:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are somewhat Diliff-like and make me envious, although I don't know if they have as high resolution (it's not a big deal to create sth. like that using Photomatix, but then of course you have lots of noise, color fringes and other problems in full size). --A.Savin 11:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palácio de Cristal (Petrópolis).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 03:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Beautiful building, but at 10.5 MP the level of sharpness on the left edge is unacceptable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King, but I very much want to see a sharper photo of this building that we can feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp per King and Ikan, and the WB seems a bit off, like the sky picked up the greenish tones common elsewhere in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reichstagsgebäude und Paul-Löbe-Haus, Berlin-Mitte, 170327, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 05:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The east side of the Paul Löbe building in Berlin-Mitte, facing the river Spree, during the blue hour. On the left the Reichstag building can be seen. Both buildings belong to the German parliament ("Bundestag"). If you look carefully through the Paul Löbe building (direction west) you can see both the Federal Chancellery and the sunset. Taking this photograph was quite challenging. I've planned to take this photo since a while. Finally I had a free evening with suitable light and weather conditions. When I arrived at the place a really hughe amount of photographers (let's say around 20-30 persons) were already lined up at both sides of the river (behind me there was the Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders building which is also a well known photo subject). The light conditions changed very quickly so it wasn't easy to find the right settings to have a short exposure on the one hand (to avoid that the first frames of the stitched mosaic are differently exposed compared with the last frames) and to get the water of the river Spree smooth on the other hand (for this purpose I'd prefered a longer exposure even more but then the light situation would have change inbetween the single exposures too much). For the same reason I used my 35mm lens in this case instead of the 50mm: I wanted to have less frames to take. The dynamic range of the scene was very high so I had to do it using HDR technique. To have a short exposure I decided not to take five exposures as usual but only three exposures (-2 EV, 0 EV, +2 EV) for each frame. For the stitching itself I had to play around a little bit with different kinds of projections. In the end I've chosen a "Vedutismo"-projection because the rectilinear projection caused extreme stretching for such a wide field of view. Regarding the crop I decided to use a 16:9 ratio because 2:3 would have ended in too much empty space at the top and the bottom. Placing the buildings right in the middle of the picture follows the rule of thirds. Finally, after some hours of work, I'm personally quite convinced by the result. I hope you agree. I'll be thankful for any comment. All by me. -- Code (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding image! Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also appreciate the explanation. --cart-Talk 08:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for both your pic and the explanation! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic, reminds me a bit of one of my all-time favourites --A.Savin 12:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very impressive - is there anything you can do about artefacts in the sky? Charles (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the explanation is nice but the finished image still speaks for itself. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a very impressive picture, and I appreciate the thought and planning that went into it but I am just curious: What is the point of stitching a panorama from a whopping 54 frames instead of using a single wide angle lens (or maybe using just two or three frames) if the final version is going to be downsampled to only 20 megapixels anyway? Why not upload the full 50+ megapixels? Also, I slightly prefer the rectilinear projection for architecture (as it does not play tricks on the eyes regarding which lines are straight and which are curved), but I see that the rectilinear image doesn't include the interesting ~~church~~ Reichstag building on the left, and I would support either version. dllu (t,c) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Megapixels

@Dllu: The stitched image has a field of view equivalent to a 3mm lens. Obviously, such a lens doesn't exist so it simply wouldn't be possible at all to take such a photo as a single frame. It would look rather ugly, too. You can have a look at the PTGui preview for a rectilinear version of the same view and I don't believe you'd find it better than this "Vedutismo"-version. I usually don't use stitching to increase the megapixel count but for other reasons: First I'm using the panorama head to simulate a tilt-shift-lens. When taking a multirow panorama and stitching it with PTGui I can easily get the verticals rectilinear without any loss of quality. Then I'm using the panorama head to get a field of view that I wouldn't get using a single picture. You can see here an example of more or less the same view taken with a 24mm lens. Third, I can easily improve the image quality by downsampling the stitched image to more or less the same size a single picture would have if it came directly out of my camera (~20MPix). Everything is sharp then and you don't get any complaints about noise and so on. All in all I prefer image quality over image size. I could of course upload a version with some more megapixels but I honestly don't see the use of it. You can print this version in any size you want and even on the screen you won't see anything in the 50MPix version that you can't see in the 20MPix version. By the way the buliding on the left isn't a church. --Code (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your explanation. I see the motivation for the Vedutismo projection now. Regarding downsampling, Commons:Image guidelines explicitly states "do not downsample", with the reason being that future devices may support more pixels. Indeed, there is already a 33 megapixel monitor. Regardless of whether the human eye can see so much detail, I still think that for a project like Wikimedia Commons, which seeks to document human knowledge, one should store as much information as possible. dllu (t,c) 04:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be called "downsampling" when the result of my work has exactly the megapixel count a single picture out of my camera would have. As stated above I don't use stitching to increase the megapixel count but to get a wider field of view and straight verticals without losing quality or image size compared to a single exposure out of the camera. And as I already said I don't care much about Megapixels but I do care about visual quality. And we all know very well that many of our fellow Commoners would complain about noise and sharpness regardless of whether they look at a 50 or 100MPix picture. --Code (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dllu, I don't think the "do not downsample" guideline is always appropriate for stitched photos. With a rectilinear projection especially, the stretching that occurs is effectively upsampling, and so that's why I think some downsampling can be justified to get back to reasonable pixel sizes in the corners. I don't see the point in uploading >100MP images if they are soft at 100%, demonstrate lots of noise or have their pixels hugely stretched in the corners. All of Diliff's stitched photos are downsized significantly, though not nearly as much as this one here. I think, Code, you could have uploaded a significantly larger version than 20MP without any issues. Some of my stitched images are not downsized at all, and I was happy with the sharpness. Others are downsized, from memory, to 75%. Possibly if my image was handheld (and thus not fully sharp) or contained extreme stretching then a 66% downsize might sharpen things up sufficiently, but I can't recall whether I've gone that low. My guess here is that you generated an image well over 100MP and downsized to only 20MP. Your sharp lens, HDR technique and tripod will reduce noise and ensure a sharp image. So if we consider stretching... A cylindrical projection does not stretch the horizontal, only the vertical. So how do the pixels at the top of this image compare with the source pixels in each of your photos? IMO you should aim to be about the same, then you can claim the downsizing is appropriate, and the centre will be extra sharp. Another test I've used is to compare a full size JPG with a downsized JPG that is then upsized and sharpened -- is there any loss of fine detail? If there isn't then the level of downsizing is not too bad. It seems here your significant downsizing is only to avoid pixel peeping comments, and that makes me sad, because it is completely avoidable in other ways, and I think to be honest you are a respected enough photographer that you might be surprised to not get them. -- Colin (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I'm a little bit busy these days so I probably won't be able to do it before the weekend but I'll upload a larger version soon (maybe via OneDrive first so that you can compare both versions). --Code (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: @Dllu: Here is the full size version (66 Megapixels). Please tell me what you think about it and if you'd prefer it if I'd overwrite the smaller version with that larger version. --Code (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: I prefer the 66 Megapixels one. It still looks very sharp to my eyes. dllu (t,c) 06:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger one is definitely better. I'm surprised "full size" is only 66MP. I guess you must have a lot of overlap in your frames. When I upsize the smaller one and compare the two, there's a lot of extra detail in the larger one. Possibly a little over-sharpened. The extra size will also be useful if people want to crop it differently. I don't think, if you overwrote it, that anyone would complain about sharpness at all. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Ikan Kekek, Uoaei1, Frank Schulenburg, w.carter, Martin Falbisoner, A.Savin, Cayambe, Moheen Reeyad, Yann, Charlesjsharp, Daniel Case, Colin, Agnes Monkelbaan, Dllu, Johann Jaritz, Famberhorst, DXR, Basotxerri Ok, I've uploaded (as a kind of compromise) a 50MPix version of the picture and applied some noise reduction in the sky. Please tell me in case anybody disagrees that the new version should be featured. Thank you. --Code (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is much better than the smaller version because of all the details you can see now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely fine. I think I've spotted a hot pixel btw, see note --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you. Whatever it was, I removed it. --Code (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does it make me a bad person if I want this to fail and the rectilinear to become an FP? -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sansone and Dalila by Matthias Stom.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 08:50:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oddly enough I kind of like it with the frame, as it offsets that bit of light falling on the upper section of the painting, which would otherwise degrade the lighting in the painting itself. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Blue light in the upper right corner that change the balance of the picture~~ I am sorry for the delay. Now your work look much better, well done, however, the problem still there. IMOH is enough for FP. --The Photographer 16:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Check now The Photographer,thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer???--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scenas da escravidão patrocinadas pelo partido da Ordem, sob o glorioso e sábio reinado do Senhor D. Pedro 11 o Grande... Revista Ilustrada, Rio de Janei- ro, n. 427, 18 fev. 1886.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 19:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
Info created by Angelo Agostini - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible that this image could have been uploaded in some format more appropriate to a two-dimensional work, like .PNG? It's rather large as a .JPG. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dani, I'm not expert in image format and colors palette, maybe and only maybe this image is not absolutely a plane 2D image with text and simple graphics, however, I agree with you and take a look to this article. Colin maybe has a vision more complete of what format use. Unfortunately this image does not come from a raw file, so a png will only be lighter but it will have the same quality at best. Thanks Dani --The Photographer 19:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That cartoon nicely illustrates the problem with JPG, with all those little gnats flying about the black text on white, though the problem is reduced if the quality settings are high. The Photographer how did you create this? Is it a stitched photo? If so, were your intermediate images exported as PNG or TIFF or JPG? If you'd used TIFF (or PNG) for intermediate files, then the output could have been a TIFF or PNG as well as uploading JPG. But if you've used JPG as an intermediate, then there's not much advantage to now saving as PNG as you say, since it is already in a lossy format. I suspect that for this image, the benefit of a lossless format will be lower than for a modern computer-generated illustration on pure white, and the shading of the crumpled paper will compress well in JPG. On the other hand, the black stippled texture in the illustration is quite hard for JPG to compress well, as it is more appropriate for gradual changes in tone like one gets in a photograph of a natural scene. I appreciate that using TIFF for intermediate files and output file, for stitched photos, can consume a lot of disc space and require a lot of processing. This image is very high resolution, so any drawbacks to JPG will be relatively minor. In terms of colour, both formats allow embedded colour profiles. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good resolution. Perhaps I am seeing a tiny amount of colour noise and CA. Did you apply a lens profile and tick the "remove CA" box? But that's just a pixel-peeping issue, not relevant to the vote. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explain. It was a stitched photo from 18 images (6 images x (3 on more to apply the ISO reduction noise)). At the beginning, I thought that I was taking these pictures in raw, however, when I got home I found with the "nice" surprise that this had been taken in jpg. This is the first time that happens to me is probably part of the learning process of this new camera, I'm sorry. BTW, I added a "panorama" template to explain that it was done using 6 images how result of join 3 differents images (to remove iso noise) for each image. I applied a Noise reduction LR filter, however, I think that it work better with the RAW image. Let me know if it's ok for you. The result is a image not downsabled or downsized. Thanks --The Photographer 11:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Lucas ^T 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative restored candidate version

Info At the request of Daniel Case, I created this PNG version. BTW, To take advantage of the PNG format richness I decided create a restoration from the original version. --The Photographer 12:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this impressive. Perhaps the whites are just a tad too bright, though; I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The artwork is not pen-and-ink but more like charcoal/pencil on paper. So there is quite a lot of grey in the drawings, and in the attempt to create a pure white background, some of this has been lost or made darker. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I do something wrong I usually tell to myself "I hope that Colin does not realize it", however, this is not the case. --The Photographer 19:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The Photographer 12:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

File:WinAir De Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter Breidenstein.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 21:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Timo Breidenstein - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2017 (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 under the 2 megapixel minimum for Featured Picture or Quality Image. However, it's a very good picture. Please nominate it at COM:VIC for Valued Image.

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

-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset in the Himalayas.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 13:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Nepal, national park Langtang. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I agree. Charles (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the negatives, I've had another look. I still love it, but the technical quality is poor so I go neutral. Charles (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose I can accept the sky being a little noisy for such a well-composed sunset. But I cannot accept the ground looking like something from an old hand-tinted postcard. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's pretty but seriously uncomfortable to look at. Feels like I'm about to fall off to the left. A slight (1.1 degrees) cw rotation make it better but it's still uneasy on the mind. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good light management in this impressing photo. Haze always appears like noise and might be misunderstood in this way.--Ermell (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- -donald- (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The high pass filter has brought out noise and also glowing artifacts along high contrast edges (particularly on the ridge in the bottom left corner). If the creator had not used such a strong high pass filter and colour saturation increase, the photo would have been FP for sure --- the camera used is very good (Nikon D800) and the settings (f/11, ISO 100) are clearly appropriate for this type of photo. dllu (t,c) 21:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Incredibly beautiful shot. Noise is forgivable, because it is fog, after all. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! (and per Philip Terry Graham) --Brateevsky {talk} 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure whether to oppose, but to my eyes, there's something wrong with the appearance of the mountaintop in the foreground, so it's not just that there's a fine grain/noise associated with fog. I'm not sure whether it's noise or something else. Also, if this does get featured, I hope the dust spot in the upper left is removed first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I'm thinking I should at least provisionally oppose, pending the removal of the dust spot. After that, I may reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I removed the dust. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've struck my oppose vote. I'm still not so happy about the foreground, but the view is so spectacular that I will be neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Faro del cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 02.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 10:59:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info Lighthouse of Cap Spartel, near Tangier, northern Morocco. The 24 metres (79 ft) lighthouse was constructed between 1861 and 1864 and and was a prime example of international agreement, in this case between the British, French, Spanish, and American governments that supported the lighthouse’s construction, and also agreed its neutrality in case of war. All by me, Poc o² 10:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: there was a previous FPC of this item that didn't success because of a busy composition, this is not the case here. Poc o² 15:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very peaceful, picturesque, and holidayesque --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You might consider cropping a bit of the sky from the top (maybe about 1/4 of the distance to the lighthouse's spire), but I really enjoy this peaceful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very California feel to it. And I second Ikan's crop suggestion, although I'd go about one-third of the way from the top. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek and Daniel Case: I've cropped a portion of the sky Poc o² 22:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Yet another crop suggestion. It makes the image much tighter and cleaner. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, KennyOMG, I decided to adopt it Poc o² 19:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly Supporting this one now! :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good in terms of quality and composition. I'm always impressed how sharp the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM lens is. --Code (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, btw, I added a note to "improve" the composition --The Photographer 13:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Euploea-kottayam-kerala.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 11:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by User:deepugn - uploaded by User:deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some way from FP sharpness and would be small if cropped. Charles (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Charles. The standard for FP butterflies is very high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northern masked weaver (Ploceus taeniopterus) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 17:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yeah, that's really good! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Less is definitely more here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first the flesh-colored bokeh blob at the bottom bothered me (could be color-changed to some green hue) ut in the end the top of the pic won me over. --cart-Talk 08:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre, British Columbia, Canada (July 2016).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 09:56:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI in all likelihood, but no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree. It does a decent job illustrating the facility (but only a small portion of it?) but otherwise it's not a very engaging photo by FP standards. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 16:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Windows
Info All by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, that's a beautiful sight, but for me to be wowed, I'd need more light. The light was too gray. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would apply some horizontal perspective correction/shearing in this case. The left side is lower than the right side. Anyhow, the crop is rather odd in my opinion; the bottom is cut off very abruptly. dllu (t,c) 21:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you prefer? A vertical panorama completely from the second to the fifth floor? --A.Savin 23:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is my edit: [3]. In my opinion, it is better to avoid having the slightly curved part at the bottom right at the edge of the image, so I cropped it out. I also applied a slight shear transformation so that the right side is not higher than the left side. A full panorama from the third to the fourth floor would have been good if there were no trees blocking the second floor. It is a tricky building to photograph indeed. dllu (t,c) 08:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like the version too, feel free to overwrite mine. --A.Savin 11:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016 Fontanna w Wojanowie 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 21:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's a pretty fountain but I'm not a fan of having people, however lovely they may be, posing tourist-style in FPs. --cart-Talk 09:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Thanks to the person in the picture it's possible to see the real size of the fountain.--Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea, but the size can also be deduced by looking at the grass, flowers, water jets and general garden settings. This is not an abstract rock or snowy landscape where you lose all sense of proportions. Again sorry. --cart-Talk 10:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have an ambivalent feeling about persons in a nice picture. But, looking at pictures 30, 50, 150 years old, they are more valuable with persons or even cars because they give the picture a historical dimension. Persons with their pose, clothing, accessories give the otherwise timeless picture a tool for timing which is pretty precise. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016 Pałac w Wojanowie 6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 21:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support dense composition - but it works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Unfortunately it seems to me like it's bitten off more than it can chew. I can see why you wanted to get the reflection in there, but I think it would have worked a lot better if we could have seen more of it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree partially obscurs the castle. Yann (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great shot with great composition and quality. The photographer can't control the sun's light and the clearness of water, nor does the tree actually obscure the castle. You're literally only taking about a few leaves on the very edge. I hate seeing nominations being derailed after snowing support, so I'm here to help lend my support. -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reebok Royal Glide Ripple Clip shoe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 12:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing
Info Reebok Royal Glide Ripple Clip men's shoe. All by me. -- Mile (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Сјајно!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just went sneaker shopping today, so I didn't need much encouragement to imagine the smell. Great detail! Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 06:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too bad it's not Reebok Pumps. Those always made me laugh. Daphne Lantier 08:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne with basketball would be good idea. Popular in 90s. --Mile (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /{{{sig}}}

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

File:Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 07:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks great as a thumbnail, but not so sharp at full size, in my opinion. But I don't recommend for you to change anything solely on my account; let's see what other people say. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Daphne Lantier 08:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ yes, sharpness could be improved but I really like composition and colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changing my vote to a regretful oppose per below. I'm sorry, I still like the composition and colors very much - if the latter only were consistent... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --RWMuc (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question How strict is the '50 edits rule'? This was the 46th edit by RWMuc. --cart-Talk 16:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Inconsistent blues (they should all be the same shade). Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oh, that's true! Any chance you can fix that, Livio? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No is impossible,thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per this point and a bit per my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it could be valuable for the creator/anyone to put a little bit more detail into the information page, such as the description, what is depicted in the fresco, is it the central focal point of the ceiling or a side part? Does it have a name? Other historical/descriptive details if possible to find. ~~I also found it missing from the subject's key category Category:Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino (Rome), I will fix that, but more attention here I think is necessary if this is to reach FP.~~ Seb26 (talk) Seb26 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Sluierbewolking tussen de bergen 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 04:59:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Overcast veil between the mountains in Stelvio National Park (Italy). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You and Agnes both take photos like this, and I like them very much. One of the things I like a lot is the green color, I think from lichens on the rocks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We find lichens beautiful. They often grow in moist shaded rocks.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A close foreground and a far background. And both are sharp enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 08:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Alpine landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to disturb, but I find this image quite unbalanced between foreground and background, and in general not outstanding enough for a feature. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cassini's Grand Finale.ogg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2017 at 11:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) · Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) · California Institute of Technology - uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A breathtaking animation by NASA/JPL-Caltech for the Cassini Grand Finale, the final leg of the Cassini Solstice Mission, in full resolution 1440p. -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 11:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The technical quality is undeniable but I find it a bit on the pompous side, sort of like the first Star Trek movie. It is also made in a movie trailer way more than a scientific way; "Cassini - Crashing soon on a planet in your solar system". --cart-Talk 12:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excelent. --Karelj (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm OK with NASA doing it like a trailer ... Lord knows that they've had a very productive and mutually beneficial relationship with the Star Trek franchise, one we have recognized here in the past, so why not? All it really needs IMO is Scotty playing the pipes over a long shot of Cassini falling into Saturn's atmosphere. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would really be "going all in". Guess I'm just a bit too jaded when it comes to film trailers. --cart-Talk 21:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Awaiting for the pictures of the finale moment... --Yann (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I liked Star Trek and Carl Sagan, AKA "billions and billions", so I have no problem with this. It's just too bad they couldn't extend the mission for even longer, like the Voyagers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - dramatic, yes, but there's definitely an emotional aspect to the end of this mission for many people (see here, for instance). A little pomp is acceptable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Shah Abbas the Great receiving the Mughal ambassador Khan’Alam in 1618.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2017 at 09:16:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info uploaded and nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 09:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 09:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Support - What an interesting evocation of 17th-century ~~Mughal~~ [edit: I mean Persian] court life. Perhaps this could also be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 10:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need Artwork template information, need OTRS. --The Photographer 13:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Support Ok now. Thanks Yann --The Photographer 00:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why OTRS? There is no copyright issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yann It's more because the photography and not the painting itself. The painting is in public domain and that's correct, however, the photography....? --The Photographer 13:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't recognize a copyright to the photographer in this case. Of course, if we have the name, better to credit her/him, but if we don't... Yann (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While this is featurable IMO, I agree with The Photographer that we need to know something about who took the picture/digitized it. It is in the British Museum, after all, and UK copyright law does recognize an interest there. Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done {{Artwork}} template added. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Efectos visuales Interference en la Medina de Túnez, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 85.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 20:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena
Info created by Poco_a_poco - uploaded by Poco_a_poco - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...welcome to The Matrix, you really chose the red pill... --cart-Talk 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting. As a child, I enjoyed going to the changing room of my local clothing store, because I could see myself numerous times in the two mirrors on opposite sides of the little cubicle. This is in some ways a more sophisticated and colorful version of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Basotxerri for this nom! And thanks also to cart for finding out that this phenomenon is called the Droste effect. Poc o² 16:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me not quite as much of The Matrix but of the Ship of Lights in the original Battlestar Galactica (albeit in a different color). Not technically perfect, but considering the overall effect I don't care. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

Mezquita Shah===File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 71-73 HDR.jpg, featured=== Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 04:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are already two FPs of this mosque - File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 34-36 HDR.jpg and File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg - but neither of them shows this or any other colorful tilework, so if like me, you consider this spectacular, I think it's appropriate to vote to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are actually those 2 FPs plus these three FPs of that mosque (is getting really popular :)): 1, 2, 3. Number 2 is of the same type but a different location. I've no problem with that :) Poc o² 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Come to think of it, I believe I looked for FPs only in Category:Masjed-e Shah, Isfahan (interior). Two of those shots are not really interior, and the other is categorized under "dome interior". I'm not sure why there's been no interest in this photo so far. If anyone thinks there's a problem with having this many FPs of one mosque, ask yourself if you'd feel that way if we were considering St. Peter's. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan I'm not sure your suggestion that religion (or attitudes towards) is a factor here. The photo that Poco suggests is most similar is I think more geometrically and compositionally interesting than this. It has a star shape to the geometry, which also provides leading lines. This photo is cropped much closer and in fact is slightly too cropped at the top, which is a shame. As a thumb, on the FPC page, perhaps it is just not catching the eye. Sometimes, also, we get used to seeing similar nominations, and could do with a break from them, to see with fresh eyes. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all logical. I'm not sure my point came across the way I intended, though. If it seems like I was suggesting prejudice on anyone's part, that wasn't my intention at all; I just picked St. Peter's as a religious building that would be familiar to everyone and unlikely to provoke any feelings that we would have too many FPs of it, providing they were of different parts of the basilica. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin and Ikan Kekek: I promise to improve the crop and will also balance the exposure overall a bit, please, give me 2 more days to do so. Poc o² 22:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin and Ikan Kekek:

Done, please, let me know what you think. Poc o² 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support A little bit overdone near the bottom but ... I could look at these colors forever. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and interesting tile artwork. Crop at the top is unfortunate. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of geommetry IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 11:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rombicosidodecaedro parabidiminuído.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 00:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by User:Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interessante e didático. Parabéns, Rodrigo! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Three browsers I have tried with (Chrome, Edge and Firefox) have all been unable to display it at full size (Even at 30.2MB, it shouldn't be a memory problem, although Chrome is claiming that's what it is). Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can display it in Chrome just fine. Something's wrong with your computer. Anyhow, this is why the LargeImage template exists, right? dllu

(t,c) 03:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that I put the Large Image viewer link on the page; it took a while but I was able to see it. However, I do agree with your support vote ... in fact I thought this was all CGI at first. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- very well executed. However, one wonders: for an abstract mathematical object, wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to use a computer-generated, ideal, vector format diagram than a photograph of an imperfect physical artifact? dllu (t,c) 03:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joalpe (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:ADAC-Zentrale, Munich, March 2017-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2017 at 06:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info The main office complex of the ADAC in Munich was designed by Sauerbruch Hutton and opened in 2012. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the lines, forms, colors, and alternations of light and dark in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 12:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I first saw this, I thought "colour moire" :-). It seems a bit under-exposed -- the leading lines go towards a black smudge. Would an HDR approach help? -- Colin (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin, ;-). Yes, admittedly the dynamic range of the scene was quite huge. I don't know whether using HDR techniques might have been a better approach. I’d argue that lighting does work well at least for the central elements of the composition. I also like the chiaroscuro already mentioned by Ikan. The black segments were in fact almost black (or at least very dark) in situ. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition, colours, subject and quality make this one of our finest. --Code (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 23:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caltha palustris (navadna kalužnica).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 08:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Caltha palustris blossoming/blooming. All by me. -- Mile (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, I propose to change the crop, if possible, by adding some space on the left and bottom. This is quite centric now. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Uoaei1 idea is good, will try to add some pixel. Done + some debright --Mile (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't seem to have FP composition or high technical quality. There's very little detail at the centre of the flower. Charles (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - works for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museo marítimo Ósvör, Bolungarvík, Vestfirðir, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 060.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2017 at 06:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info View of the Ósvör maritime museum, located in the village of Bolungarvík, Vestfirðir, Iceland. The museum consists of a double 19th century fishing base, a salt hut, a fish drying area, a drying hut and a typical fishing boat of that time. All by me, Poc o² 06:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: there is already one FP of this area.
Support -- Poc o² 06:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Half-hearted oppose I kinda like the other one a bit more. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The individual elements are interesting and have a certain potential but this composition isn't working for me, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral lack of space in the composition in the right side --The Photographer 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 12:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Western Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge at dusk, seen from Yerba Buena Island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 18:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 18:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 18:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info The EXIF time of 2.55 am is UTC time. The photo was taken at 7.55 pm, 2017-04-02, about 20 minutes after sunset. dllu (t,c) 18:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Unedited JPG and RAW are available at [4] and [5] respectively. dllu (t,c) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I saw this at QIC, I thought it was superb, but I'm now noticing horizontal and vertical lines that would seem to be visible stitching marks. In one case, the sky is clearly darker to the right of a line. Please fix the problems, and then I'll be happy to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info This is a single shot without any stitching. In any case, I see the vertical line too and I've uploaded a new version that doesn't have it. As for the horizontal lines, they were in the original image and are probably caused by aircraft contrails. dllu (t,c) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. There's a lens flare in the lower left corner, you should remove that. --Code (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I cloned it out. It's a flower, not a lens flare. There were many purple flowers in front of the camera. And lots of poison oak. You can see some of the flowers in this picture, taken a few minutes earlier. I pushed most of them out of the way for the presently nominated shot. dllu (t,c) 08:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. The bridge is caught just off of centre -- so neither symmetrical nor angled to get a better view. And the bottom half of the picture contains too much dark wood or water that isn't serving any useful purpose. The lighting of the buildings is a bit murky - again neither dark enough to be black nor light/crisp enough to be clear. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too would prefer a symmetrical composition but it isn't possible to move further to the left due to dense plants such as poison oak. dllu (t,c) 18:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. I can understand the desire to get both the bridge and the skyline in, but they are literally working at cross-purposes here. Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great timing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is sufficient, but the composition is not appealing. We already have File:San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge- New and Old bridges.jpg as an FP of the same theme, which captures the bridge much better than this one. This might have worked had it closely depicted the architectural elements of the bridge such as in File:Brooklyn Bridge - 03.jpg.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a different bridge. The eastern span is distinct from the western span. dllu (t,c) 07:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:American crocodile close up.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 04:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info All by Tomascastelazo -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this really great to look at. Very good composition, and the back is quite sharp, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We may not see the whole animal, but it shows the skin structure very well and the composition is harmonious to look at. I like these unconventional pics of animals. --cart-Talk 07:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome photo is awesome. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support!! Ggia (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 04:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the dirt on his back. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bjurfors bruk 2017-03-15 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 08:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info created by Vivo - uploaded by Vivo - nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The stream, with surroundings, is a nature reserve, to a large part because it's a popular trail walking area. Added to file description. --Vivo (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivo (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ursnyggt! Gillar kotten nere till höger. :) --cart-Talk 08:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, interesting and well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work with the man-made 'bridge' in the foreground. Charles (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Charles that the wood rather spoils the scene. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles and Colin. It wood be a lot better without that bridge . Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that the piece of wood is sub-optimal, but ultimately it's not a fatal flaw in my opinion. Man's influence is abundantly evident throughout the image, and even if a modern piece of lumber isn't quite as charming as moss-covered stone walls, it's still a part of the scene (and potentially a semi-permanent one, as opposed to, say, trash littering the ground, which would be a different story). The rudimentary bridge thing is apparently part of how people interact with nature at this location. The light, composition, and technical quality are all very good, and I think that about all we can ask of a featured picture is to masterfully show how things are, not how they should be for maximum aesthetic pleasure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others above. Also low EV. --Yann (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Finnish Air Force Hawker Hurricane warbird and US Navy T-6 Texan warbird in flight over Finland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 05:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Peng Chen - uploaded by Dura-Ace & Revent - nominated by ~riley -- ~riley (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~riley (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support, as I like both the planes and the scenery, but the picture is a bit small. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --The Photographer 14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - This may be a newbie question (and perhaps the wrong forum, but relevant to the nomination): how foolproof is ~~FlickreviewR?~~ FlickreviewR 2 (pinging ~~Bryan~~ Zhuyifei1999 sorry -- didn't notice the old bot was blocked). This is the third time in the last few days I've followed a Flickr link from a FP or FPC and found "all rights reserved" (the last two were POTY candidates). Presumably Flickr allows changing license. Of course, the CC license is irrevocable, but for that to hold up to a takedown request (or worse) we'd need evidence it was was indeed published as such. Is the bot's review sound enough that it would hold up? Seems like it may be worth making a snapshot/archive at the same time? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhododendrites the photo was uploading using Flickr2Commons. This tool will only upload files from Flickr which are marked as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and CC-0. That's the first step. Then the second step if the Flickr review by bot. You can be sure that this image was CC licenced on Flickr at the time of upload. It's pretty solid in that regard. 220.253.213.161 18:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan - on the small side, but a wonderful image. The planes are sufficiently sharp so that there's still plenty of detail even in the absence of great resolution. No qualms about licensing for reasons outlined above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks almost CGI-esque, especially on the water. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dura-Ace (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Majestic! --Gnosis (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016 Singapur, Jurong Bird Park (175).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 14:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info all by me Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is nice, but not the composition and the background. Charles (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I like the composition (I can see how the bird head look like a tree and contrasting with the trees in background, Excellent!), however, it's oversharpening resulting in noise absolutely fixable. --The Photographer 17:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I applied a noise reduction, however, I rollbacked myself, if it's ok for you you could take this version and set on top. We need another opinion too if you accept this version --The Photographer 17:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Thanks for the new fixed version. It's better:) --Halavar (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support yes, the background is unfortunate, but head and expression are truly interesting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really like the bird, and especially its head feathers, but might you consider cropping out a little more than half the background to the left? I'm finding those leaves distracting and unhelpful to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I cut the half, composition would be worse than now. --Halavar (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think, it is OK the way it is. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've been sitting on this for a while, but I'm forced to agree with Charles. The background, composition, and lighting just scream "bird in a zoo", which, while not inherently bad, tends to make for somewhat artificial looking wildlife images. Sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles - composition and background. --Karelj (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo 11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 20:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA, uploaded by Craigboy, nominated by Yann (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic image of the first crew to the moon. -- Yann (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obvious FP and a terrific photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan but the moon is not to scale! Our viewers migth be mislead ;-) -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good quip. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oh yes! --cart-Talk 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sheer historic value, but also a very well composed small-group portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A famous image -- Thennicke (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Formation with Flying bulls (29370033695).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 18:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Peng Chen - uploaded by Dura-Ace and Revent - nominated by Base -- Base (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Base (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic! My congratulations to the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support God Amazing picture and thanks Ikan --The Photographer 02:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, The Photographer, I don't think Ikan was congratulating you for something when he said "My congratulations to the photographer". I think he meant the photographer who took the photo. --cart-Talk 07:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. The Photographer was making a joke that went over my head. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bad joke, I'm sorry --The Photographer 17:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 07:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dura-Ace (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of this series that I've seen are great and this one, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The diversity of aircraft makes it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia sumergida de San Nicolás, lago Mavrovo, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 11.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 18:09:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Winter image of the submerged church of St. Nicholas, Mavrovo Lake, Republic of Macedonia. The church was built in 1850 and submerged in the local lake in 1953, but due to droughts in the 21st century it has largely appeared out of the lake.
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool finding, thank you Kiril! When I planned to visit this place I was expecting to find something like this (it was middle of April) but instead I got there at the same time like a cold wave with this result. Driving with a summer tyres VW Golf was crazy but the views overwhelming...:) Poc o² 18:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that day with unusually low temperatures for the country in that period of the year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's not very interesting and I find the featureless bright white foreground makes it unappealing. Charles (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ Support. Not a fan of the crop, suggested an alternative on the image page. Not exact but if you play with it you'll see what I had in mind (a positive diagonal for not only the slope but for the tree-church-hillside trio too - as well an excellent separation of these elements based on distance). I believe in this one. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (An ironic way to !vote considering the colors in the image ) I think the proposed crop could be even further improved by coming up about a sixth from the bottom. Support OK, I like this better. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, @Charlesjsharp, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, and KennyOMG: I applied a crop Poc o² 19:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The new version is much better, in my opinion. I've struck my oppose vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop improves it in a way, but the balance is less good. Still not FP for me. Also, I'm not keen on the house being in the middle Charles (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the house-in-the-middle is a bad thing, but it's probably too low in the frame for it to work perfectly. Everyone's a critic here, I guess. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent technical quality and interesting enough to sway me into the support camp. Nicely captures the atmosphere of a departing snowstorm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lysets tøven.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 18:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
Info all by me Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Really nice picture. Does the bridge in fact curve? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes the brigde does curve, see this picture: File:Århus ringgadebro.JPG. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also really like the image, but where is the purple light coming from? WClarke 03:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Read this signeklejss.wordpress.com, it tells about it. "Hundreds of lamps will compete with the sunset, and by twilight the bridge will be lit up in its full form. Each unique night sky will define the bridge’s color. Two cameras positioned on the tower of Godsbanen will point to every corner of the sky and record the colors in a given period of time while the sun goes down. The information about the sky’s colors is then converted into the bridge’s new palette. Clothed in nature’s colors – large and lit – the bridge will enter a new visual dialogue with the landscape and the surrounding city architecture." --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which camera and lens did you use? The focal length given in the EXIF data is impressive. --Code (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Canon 5D mrk III, lens 24-70 mm ultrasonic at 33 mm, it is a "exposure fusion" og 3 pictures 0,5 - 2,0 -8,0 sec at f / 8.0 .--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Code (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice composition Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, and thanks for the details. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better that the first nom. Thanks for taking this photo instead. :) --cart-Talk 12:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 04:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Qualified~~ support in that as excellent as this picture is, I hope you were taking it from somewhere accessible to the public (the geocoding says it was taken from the bridge ... or are we to take it that it's of the bridge?). I really do not want to encourage unsafe behavior around trains, such as trespassing into actively-used track areas, in the name of great pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was taken of the brigde, I will correct it. I was standing on safe place with no trains running, I iven talk with the the people working there. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Villy Fink Isaksen: OK, good. As long as the employees knew you were there. They probably shouldn't be letting people do that, but that's between them and the railroad, not us. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this one; the pink bridge looks really strange -- Thennicke (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Red Arrows roll upside down in tight formation during display training MOD 45147906.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 17:35:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Cpl Andy Benson - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Nick -- Nick (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a particularly good image (IMO) and there's a surprising shortage of such aerial imagery of the Red Arrows -- Nick (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not as great a composition as the other photo of planes in formation nominated above, in my opinion, but also quite compelling and not a close case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - striking image with good technical quality. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dura-Ace (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 14:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Breaking waves, Sète cf03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2017 at 07:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good catch. Ce n'est pas le moment d'aller se promener sur la jetée... ;o) Yann (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the almost monochrome of the pic. Hope your camera didn't suffer from all the salt water spray, I know how annoying that can be. --cart-Talk 12:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: thanks you, I tried to be as fast as possible, paying attention to the waves coming in my direction, a timing concern :) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 18:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost painterly ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling of Grand cabinet de le reine - Louvre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 16:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent job, one of your better ones lately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 23:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Door beukenblad gegroeide Krokus (Crocus) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2017 at 05:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Iridaceae.
Info By beech leaf grown Crocus (Crocus) I continue to amaze me at the power of nature. In these little things. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The framing looks a bit arbitrary to me, with various elements being cut off at inopportune places. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the framing is a little haphazard, but perhaps better called "organic", which would fit the subject nicely. Sharp, colorful, and very engaging - I always love how spring bulbs grow up through last year's fallen leaves. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. --Karelj (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, what the heck... I can't stop coming back to this, it has too much allure despite the imperfect right crop. Spring conquers all. --cart-Talk 16:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Ggia (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The scene, with the rain-slicked crocuses and some of them growing through a beech leaf is compelling, but the composition and crops are not, so I reluctantly conclude that this is not overall one of the best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Framing, per King. --Karelj (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You had already voted. See above.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red hot chilli peppers.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2017 at 04:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by Tomascastelazo -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but the area on focus is a bit short. Yann (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No FP quality. Sorry. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, DoF should be better. --XRay ^talk 19:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose You did a great job in this image of depicting the subject, and the prominence of the red and green look very nice together, but IMO there were still a couple drawbacks for me: the lighting gleams or shines off of the subject too much in some places, most notably off the two large peppers near the center; I agree that peppers do inherently glisten some naturally, but it dominates the photograph too much in this case for me. I really don't mind the slight level of noise that 400 ISO brings here, even though some might not, but around the edges the peppers are less in focus, and with the noise it starts looking distorted. Despite this, I always enjoy seeing your photographs because you're one of the only ones here that primarily photographs in Mexico/Latin America (some of the American Southwest if I recall correctly), bringing a unique set of diverse subject matter. WClarke 19:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WClarke, I think the bluish light reflecting off the peppers ruins the effect. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light conditions are not good enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willow catkins in Lysekil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 23:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Salicaceae
Info A bit of minimalistic spring. The light was very sharp, so at first I tried to do this with HDR, but that still left most of the very small details murky. So I decided to do this "old school" and used a small reflector screen to light the shadowy side of the twig. This really lit up the tiny new emerging leaves and showed how silky they were. All by -- cart-Talk 23:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 23:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not all that minimalistic to me. Very good picture with nice rhythm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the reflected light. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Railway switch lever on Grötö.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2017 at 21:10:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info A railway switch lever in the industrial area of Grötö in Lysekil, Sweden. The whole area has a network of rail tracks, connecting the different docks and industries with Lysekilsbanan. Most of the tracks are integrated with asphalt roads servicing both trains, trucks and cars. The railway (Lysekilsbanan) has been inactive in 2016-2017, so while you are not in any danger of being hit by a train, you could be run over by a truck on most of the section of the rail tracks. However, this is one section where the tracks are on sleepers, so no interaction with other traffic. (Not totally sure if the category should be "Objects" or "Rail vehicles".) All done by -- cart-Talk 21:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 21:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like so many things about this on a purely aesthetic level: the interplay of the lines of the tracks and the form of the switch lever and its shadow, the way the bright red and yellow stand out from the earth tones behind them, and the texture of the ballast. I also like that you called it a switch in your filename even though we had to categorize the image under "Points (railway)". Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support works surprisingly well, per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 14:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photograph, but only a small Wow. But a Wow. --XRay ^talk 05:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid this does nothing for me. Charles (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose, sorry. The idea is nice but the result doesn't seem entirely convincing to me. It sounds foolish but the composition would have been better if the lever would have been toggled to the other side (less centered). --Basotxerri (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basotxerri: If following the rule of thirds with this subject with the lever turning the direction it is, of course the head of the lever is going to being extending out some, but it doesn't extend far. If the field of view remained the same, if the lever were turned the other way it would be on the far left, or partially cropped out, so the entire composition would have to be rethought out anyway; just my opinion. Thanks. WClarke 04:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I think the photograph captures the subject well and the image is sharp, but I don't love the colors overall. The yellow/red lever does provide some contrast, but still doesn't standout enough IMO. The direct sunlight to me, at least in this case, almost "washes out" some of the color, and the orange/brown/tan rocks are too close in color to the rust. I think you had good vision in finding the subject, and recognizing it as something interesting, as opposed to ordinary, but the other reasons were more dominant in my decision. Sorry. WClarke 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well captured, maybe a smaller DoF would have been a bit better, I don't know. I like very much the composition and the texture. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Technically well done but the motive and the light situation are not thrilling.--Ermell (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special photo for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabestana cutacea dolaria 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2017 at 20:15:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 149-151 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2017 at 20:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Main nave of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. All by me, Poc o² 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing place and definitely a deserving photo. For full disclosure, haven't we featured at least one other picture of this church's interior? I would find and link it myself, except that since yesterday, my efforts to find photos in any category other than "Good photos" are not working. That seems to happen every so often. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ikan, actually we have 2 FPs, one of the altar and another one of the pipe organ. This church is really spectacular and cameras are actually not allowed but did some paper work and got some local help :) Poc o² 21:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 20:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of what Aldous Huxley wrote in Heaven & Hell about how the Church had to make its medieval buildings (and yes, I know this is not one) look like such lavishly outfitted palaces of material splendor, with much finish that was shiny and sparkly, so that the congregants could feel like they were entering a small piece of heaven. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very detailed photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20160801 Irrawaddy River Bagan 6788.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2017 at 21:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created &uploaded by User:Jakubhal - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The backdrop, and especially the cloud formations, dramatic light and crepuscular rays make this a spectacular picture, in my opinion, far beyond the normal beauty of a sunset. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo does have a certain impact the first time you see it, but that first impression fades rather quickly. The different elements in the photo seem almost a bit mismatched to me and unharmonious. Sorry. --cart-Talk 13:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand, but I appreciate that you said something, given that no-one else has had anything to say so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The sky is extraordinary and the foreground is very routine, which makes this a difficult call. As with Cart, the image did a mediocre job of holding my interest after the striking first impression. There's nothing tangibly wrong with the image, it's just a little boring for my taste. I'm not a huge fan of minimalistic landscape photography, but again... I can see how this might still excel within that scope. All that said, I can only speak for myself, and given Ikan's glowing praise for the image, it's obvious that it does resonate with certain people more than others. Who am I to say that my "wow" is the correct "wow"? I'll toss in a support to keep the nomination alive and see what others have to say. Certainly, we have plenty of FPs that don't excite me as much as this photo. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart, who as she so often does says exactly what I was thinking. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - I'm very surprised by the (non-)reaction to this photo, but I see no reason to draw it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 16:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close wing position of Delias agostina Hewitson, 1852 – Yellow Jezebel WLB DSC 0416.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2017 at 16:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info Close wing position of Male Delias agostina agostina Hewitson, 1852 – (Sikkim Yellow Jezebel) created by Atudu - uploaded by Atudu - nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atudu (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is it close wing or closed wing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a crop...but ok for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice QI. but not sharp enough for FP. Charles (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles; the blurred areas at top and bottom are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per LivioAndronico --Llez (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johann Moritz Rugendas (1802-1858) . Litografia aquarelada 1835.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2017 at 12:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Johann Moritz Rugendas - uploaded and nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer 12:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer 12:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me, this is an obvious FP. Very good condition, superbly photographed, and of obvious socio-historical importance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't able to get it to open at full-size in FF, but Chrome handled it OK. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Dani, I could try send you it by e-mail if you want. --The Photographer 02:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2017 -- 9315-21.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2017 at 04:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2016 -- 5920-6.jpg as FP. This is the other side of the hand. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But IMO there is no rule not to nominate another image. Or am I wrong? --XRay ^talk 13:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No rule. I just think it fair to be open about the previous FP, since we're judging "among the finest". -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO difficult. It's not VI. I think there may be more than one fine image. Please see for example: File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke8.jpg, File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke9.jpg and File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke10.jpg. Three very fine images. We should not discuss this. --XRay ^talk 19:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support If we decide to have this angle of this sculpture as well then I am OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the perspective distortion of the buildings really off-putting. Charles (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. I withdraw the image, IMO there is no hope for FP. So it's better to have a look to all the other FPCs. --XRay ^talk 06:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sorlada - San Gregorio Ostiense 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2017 at 19:05:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, but a color version is also nice to have for wikipedia and encyclopedic reasons.. Ggia (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand what you mean but I'll leave this one as only B&W. Better for Wikipedia articles are the two near views (see Other versions on the image page). Thank you for your comment! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20151030 Syrians and Iraq refugees arrive at Skala Sykamias Lesvos Greece 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 20:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Ggia, nominated by Yann (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best (tragic) illustration of the refugees crisis in Southern Europe. (Second nom.) -- Yann (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a big dust spot on the right in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately just as relevant today as in 2015. It looks a bit oversaturated though and for disclosure we already have this FP. --cart-Talk 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per user:W.carter Ggia (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek, W.carter, and Ggia: Thanks for the review. I removed the dust spot, and reduced the saturation a little bit. I hope it's OK now. I think the composition is better than the other FP. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I hadn't seen these images before now, but undoubtedly these are astounding. This is genuine photojournalism by someone within this community, which is rare, and provides invaluable contributions to the project. Though per others I agree that the other image being an FP is sufficient, and I think the other image gives the viewer better insight into the subject and situation. WClarke 03:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WClarke: I am not a photojournalist by the way. If you like the photo I can again open the raw file to extract a better version. But I can do it after 24 April because now I am traveling and I don't have access to my files! Ggia (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ggia: You don't have to formally be a journalist to participate in photojournalism- any committed photographer when confronted with injustice has the responsibility, within reason, to document horrible situations like these and share them with the world; in this case you did that, and to me this photograph is on par with those published in major newspapers. Though in terms of editing the photograph, I would leave it almost unchanged from the original version, as close as possible to what you witnessed that day. For years, primarily since the advent of digital photography, there has been debate over what is and what isn't acceptable to edit in a photograph intended for journalistic purposes. The Associated Press has a "Code of Ethics for Photojournalists", and this is a rare case on FPC where I would recommend following them when editing. While I obviously don't think any edits you made were meant to "mislead" viewers by any means, the AP does warn that "changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable", so if you reprocess the raw files, just keep that in mind. IMO, in this case I really don't think altering color is necessary anyway, as the colors from your first version (assuming you didn't make any large changes before) still look very nice. Thanks. WClarke 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WClarke: I follow Mangum photographers that also manipulate (make) their pictures black and white. Ie [6] James nachtwey, or [7] Alex Majoli. Different rules for AP or Reuters different rules for Magnum. I don't sell photos here and I don't have any benefit to make the photo more dramatic. The reason that this "no manipulation" rule apply in AP or Reuters is because in the past photographers edited their photos in order to be more dramatic and sell them and earn money or win a photojournalist price. Dramatic images are sold easier. A good essay about those dramatic images and the photo market is the book of Susan Sontag "regarding the pain of others". Ggia (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we didn't have that one, there would be more call to feature this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see any reason why we can't have two FPs of this scene. Both pictures are visually striking, important, and extremely valuable --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin, now that the photo is fixed. --cart-Talk 12:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture, but very similar photo of this series is already FP. --A.Savin 18:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the other photo is better. More chaotic. -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart's comment, especially regarding the effect of the apparently too-saturated blue tones. I would add that the other photo, the one we featured, benefits from more realistic color. Also, the immediacy I praised in that one, noting the people in the water, the chaos Colin mentions, is absent in this one. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination A pity... Yann (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexandria Beach.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 08:15:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created and uploaded by Faris knight - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, not a very interesting composition, random-seeming crops, and not that sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. A peaceful scene that makes me want to visit the beach, but ultimately such an easily repeatable image that we can expect better execution. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:GGB Bhe 2-4 Gornergrat.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 10:08:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Gornergratbahn Bhe 2/4 just below the top station Gornergrat, Switzerland.
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Kabelleger's photos of trains in mountainous terrain are so striking! I love the textures in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful on so many levels! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a good Swiss tourism poster. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would like to take a ride.--Ermell (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 20:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why does it look like the train is leaning to the left? Is it the cant of the track? —Bruce1ee^talk 06:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a rack railway and it's pretty steep, hence the EMU is pointing upwards. Rack railways tend to have little cant due to the slow speeds. Btw. thanks for the nom @Thennicke! --Kabelleger (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. Thanks for the explanation. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:PIA14455 - Light-Toned Layering in a Labyrinthus Noctis Pit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 05:46:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) · Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) · University of Arizona - uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another HiRISE image for your consideration. This time, we look at layers, similar to what you'd find on Earth, embedded with hydrated minerals. A unique feature in the so-called "labyrinth of the night", an an important subject of Martian geology. -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing picture, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something very special --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice Valued image, but for FP, no wow... --Karelj (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF, really? You realize this is on Mars, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ikan Kekek: not exactly a great way to persuade someone. @Karelj: any particular reason you don't think this is an FP? Any technical issues, or just personal taste? If it's the latter, then that's fine by me. -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not at attempt to persuade on my part, just an expression of stupefaction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaza de la República, Ereván, Armenia, 2016-10-02, DD 113-114 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 08:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Frontal night view of the History Museum of Armenia, Republic Square, Yerevan, capital of Armenia. The museum, founded in 1920, has 400,000 objects belonging to the departments of Archaeology (35% of the obejcts), Numismatics (45%), Ethnography (8%), Modern History and Restoration. Poc o² 09:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Kasir for this nom! it was indeed in my candidates list! Poc o² 08:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great but wb may be too warm --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure about that, Martin, I could surely cool it a bit, but it does look pretty realistic to me. In the image there are some white areas and they are indeed white not too "warm". I'd like to hear other opinions. Poc o² 09:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support convinced --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not perfect, but beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. More blown-out areas than ideal but still a great image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any shortcomings generally unavoidable as an effect of doing a long exposure at night. What's going on over on the left? Looks like someone was taking a flash picture of their own. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berliner Dom, 170409, ako (2).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2017 at 05:00:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info If you look at my Berlin pictures you will see that most of them were taken when the weather was sunny. Blue sky, no or few clouds, sunshine. Well, honestly that's not what Berlin really looks like. Most time of the year Berlin is muddy, grey, cloudy and wet. I thought it was time to try to give you an impression of how living in Berlin really feels and so I recently took a walk on a wet and cloudy morning to capture a quite well known Berlin scenery differently. I've chosen a 121 seconds exposure to get both water and sky smooth, to improve the reflection in the water and to give the picture a somewhat timeless, dreamy touch. The ND 3.0 filter caused a slight vignette. I didn't remove it because I think it emphasizes the oppressive mood of the picture. I know that's not the usual FP candidate and I know that this nomination might be controversial but I'm curious about your opinion. I made a portrait version as well but I think this one is better. The picture works quite well in b/w, too, but I know that nominating a b/w version would be even more controversial. All by me. --Code (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps I'd like the black & white version better. Could I please see it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Sorry, I won't have access to it until next tuesday... --Code (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can wait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per your nomination. Last time I was in Berlin, at roughly this time of year, we actually had good weather except for some overcast skies the last day, so I know where you're coming from. I think I remember seeing the cathedral dome the first time I was there, in 1988, when you had to go over to the East to see it (am I right?) Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Yes, you're right. The "Mitte" district of Berlin where the cathedral is located was part of east Germany. --Code (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Last time I was there, the weather was grey, cold and wet. "Bad" weather pictures can be just as great as blue sky postcard pictures when the photographer embraces the conditions, as you did here. I'm making this a "weak" support only because I've played around a bit with b&w conversions and I think removing color would actually add to this image in terms of timelessness/dreaminess. --El Grafo (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, I added a note for a dust spot Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: Thank you, I'll fix it on tuesday. I don't have the RAW file with me at the moment. --Code (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 12:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bieszczady - view from Połonina Caryńska (2016) 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 13:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - I like this composition. Was the sky greenish like that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground shadows are too much for me, and I think there is a green tint in the WB. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, on my monitor the colors need correction. The sky in File:Bieszczady - view from Połonina Caryńska (2016) 02.jpg, taken a few minutes earlier, appears more natural. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Removed my support vote, pending reply to my question and/or possible correction of the white balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The WB and foreground shadows are not a problem for me. The discordant wooden railing in the front is. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much shadows in the foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brill windmill April 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 21:19:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support simple yet absolutely impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. --Code (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like how commanding the windmill is in the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Filo gèn' (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Foggy Watch Hill Cove sunrise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 17:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United States
Info all by me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'd like the people who are wowed by this photo to please explain why, because so far, I'm not getting it, and maybe if you give me something to think about, I might. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just speaking for myself, what drew me to this scene (and prompted me to unpack my camera gear again after calling it quits for the morning) was the vague "X" shape created by the sailboat masts and their reflections... as well as the atmospherics, obviously. I thought it was a nice juxtaposition of the serene fog and slight visual tension of the intersecting diagonals. I did consider a more high-contrast version, which may have made the image pop a little more, but decided on what looked most faithful to reality. I do sometimes have trouble curating my own work so who knows... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, we are all partially blind when it comes to our own photos. ;) It's a well-established fact. --cart-Talk 20:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! And Ikan, explaining the "wow" of a photo is just a hard as describing why you are moved by certain pieces of music but I will give this a try from my point of view. Any maritime fog photo has the allure of 'The Flying Dutchman' fantasy/imagination. In this photo it is enhanced by the fact that things are not as we normally expect them to be. Here, the reflection of the sun is brighter than the actual sun, the horizion is obliterated and we are in a sort of primordeal void and on top of that the masts of the boats are not aligned vertically and horizontally as we are used to. Instead they are sticking out at odd angles from a central point where they are reflected and the whole thing looks like something out of this world. The mast-thing is also placed in a hamonious way in the composition and the color is timeless. Seeing this photo gives me the feeling of peering into something mysterious, sort of like the first time I heard "Riders on the Storm" (even if there is no storm present here). There. That is as much of picking my brain as you will get. --cart-Talk 20:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was really interesting. Also, Julian, I do see the vague "X". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That support rationale was a work of art in its own right. Thank you. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I'd like to add to this is the tension created between the disagreement of the extreme symmetry on the right and the Sun's mirror image being in the "wrong" place on the left. -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stephen King's The Mist --The Photographer 23:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I saw this over at QIC and hoped we would see it here. I am glad it has been seen so soon. Stunning mood. Daniel Case (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like an alien flying robot, pretty cool. dllu (t,c) 00:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Code (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredibly nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 18:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I'll be glad to see Category:Featured picture of Rhode Island — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support In first moment I was thinking it was a snapshot. However when I start looking much better to this image I realize this is a brilliant shot --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 08:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support big wow, this image will also go to the natural phenomena gallery Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jan Steen - The Drawing Lesson - 83.PB.388 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2017 at 20:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by BotMultichillT from Getty website - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Jane023 -- Jane023 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jane023 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Low light, but I trust the Getty. Great painting, and fascinating with all the artist's props and still life objects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was looking for another good Getty picture to nominate. Multichill (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sant'Agnese in Agone (Rome) - Dome interior (Wide view).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 20:49:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question do I spot some CAs in the left window? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, there is CA, but it's fairly minor and can be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Spurzem (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View west along Duomo roof, Milan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2017 at 08:42:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:Daniel Case - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Daniel Case has been taking many photographs that either focus on the tourists or fit the paradigm of "landscape with people". In this case, the people are much less important than the fantastic tall spires on the duomo's roof, but their presence creates a rhythm for the viewer's eyes, so neither he nor I think it damages the composition, and it's also a way of acknowledging the elephant - or, well, crowd - in the room, which is not always best to ignore. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first pillar on the right is taller than the first pillar on the left. Is this an actual physical difference? Daphne Lantier 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closest similar image I can find. It isn't from the same angle, but you can see that a lot of the figurines atop the spires are different, which may account for the slight apparent variation in height. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Upon further review, I decided to see if I could correct this without ruining things, and indeed a slight horizontal perspective adjustment seems to have done the trick. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: That does look better. The only question I still have is why the left crop is so much tighter than the right crop? Daphne Lantier 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daphne Lantier: Fixing the perspective left me with more room on the right than the left. I could try to square it up if you want me to try. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: If you have time, but I've bugged you enough for a support already.

Daphne Lantier 01:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, please address this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The people is a inevitable element maybe --The Photographer 12:03, 13 April 2017
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I am always delighted when someone else nominates an image of mine. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 01:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - remarkable shot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition, perspective excellent done --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Woman and window.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 23:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
Info All by -- The Photographer 23:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but not enough wow for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Aspö.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2017 at 21:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info This is the shipwreck of an old military vessel called HMS Aspö. The photo is taken in February 2017, and it was frozen partially inside a layer of ice. Created/nominated by: Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, good, and unusual. Yann (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The panorama, as opposed to just fitting the shot into a typical aspect ratio, brings a good result, fitting the entire length of the boat well, allowing for focus only on the main subject, which is in sharp focus. WClarke 17:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support In addition to WClarke's observations, I'd point out how the background accentuates the theme of a ship long past its day. The neutral colors work well with the ship's own tones, and the late winter weather corresponds metaphorically to the ship's condition. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm, maybe it's just me - but I don't get it. In other words: no now. Sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's not just you. I find the photo a bit interesting, but it doesn't really speak to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patrulla Águila in formation flight with the Flying Bulls.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2017 at 19:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Peng Chen - uploaded by Dura-Ace & Revent - nominated by Base -- Base (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Base (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dura-Ace (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 10:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful layering effect on the mountains. Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support it has a lot of wow Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 07:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 07:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Persépolis, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 53.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2017 at 13:04:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Bas-reliefs of palace guards at the monumental stairs of the Apadana in Persepolis, today Iran. The Apadana was the largest building on the Terrace at Persepolis and was most likely the main hall of the kings. The reliefs of the stairs show delegates of the 23 subject nations of the Persian Empire paying tribute to Darius I along with the here depicted guards. These reliefs are very valuable since the great detail of various of the delegates give insight into the costume and equipment of the various peoples of Persia in the 5th century BC. All by me, Poc o² 13:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ don't know... I find the composition difficult and would prefer other pics of your Persepolis series like -15 ... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support cart was right, as always. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Sahand Ace 11:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sort of per Martin ... I think it would be stronger if we just saw those reliefs that were in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Along with a perspective effect, my intention hier was to represent a looong row of guards, as it was back then with a few close (and sharp) and the others less and less sharp as they are further Poc o² 06:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ See below. For this to work for me, I need to see the very end of the wall/procession (however awful it may look). That would give the photo, and me, some breathing space. Looking at it now, I feel like I'm pressed up against the wall with no way out. If I got "some light at the end of the row/wall" (something like this) I may reconsider. --cart-Talk 18:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
cart: here would be the light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think that's indeed an improvement? To be honest I'm not sure which one is better Poc o² 19:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, I can't speak for the rest of the voters here, but that is exactly what I was looking for; a closure. The wall dissolving into a bright light in a clean way is much better than I could have hoped for. (It could just as easily have ended in a bunch of tourists or some garish souvenir stand.) In some strange way the light in that end also "brings out" the dark faces on the nearest reliefs, giving the whole scene better contrast. --cart-Talk 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cart, I've uploaded a version with a new crop showint the "light". Pinging the voters so far whether they want to keep things like they are or not: @Gnosis, Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, Jacopo Werther, and Basotxerri: and XRay Poc o² 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank from me at least. :) Now the structure (and me) can breathe and I'll Support it. --cart-Talk 21:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Support this version, too. Thanks, cart and Poc o² -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 21:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RAF Search and Rescue Helicopter in the Cairngorms MOD 45155350.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2017 at 20:06:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by SAC Faye Storer - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Nick -- Nick (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is now a historic image (RAF Search and Rescue having been disbanded, and the Westland Sea King having exited RAF service, it seems appropriate to review the best material and propose it for FP status. -- Nick (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dura-Ace (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 10:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nick. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, good contrast between helicopter and background. WClarke 04:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rochaverá Corporate Towers, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 12:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by -- The Photographer 12:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice symmetry Ezarateesteban 14:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive building, nice light and composition. Yann (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne

Lantier 19:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Very good compo and fine quality--Ermell (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very wow image. The close distance to the towers, and the rectilinear perspective, has resulted in quite strong wide-angle effect + vertical perspective correction. Given that the buildings are actually leaning in one part, I'm a bit uncomfortable with exaggerating things. For example, the first image on this website is taken from a height, meaning the verticals are not so distorted. But also, I'm concerned about the health of your fellow Brazilians. Look at the bottom left. They appear to be fatter than they are tall. Is there any way you can take this from higher up or further back. -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was hoping this image would show up here after seeing it at QIC. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appearance is good. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I see noise on the facades and strong distortion (look at the people at the lower left) --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What counts are the two buildings, not the tiny people. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Jaritz, you are wrong, a photo content is all in the cavas, we are responsible for everything in the frame, what we those to insert, and not insert. And this people occupy 1/6 of width of the photo, I should remind you that is a FP candidature, should be our best work, not a photo with faults... And people are symptomatic, the building is totally different, see my comment below. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 03:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we sure that aspect ratio is correct? It is a common mistake with vertical perspective correction to accidentally cause things to be stretched horizontally and compressed vertically (I had a similar issue myself with a slightly squished image [8]). This can happen when trying to do perspective correction manually without taking into account the focal length of the lens. That would also explain the odd proportions of the people. From Google maps it seems that in real life the buildings are taller than they are wide, but that fact is not obvious from this image. dllu (t,c) 19:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and Colin comment too. Before to build this image I applied a lens correction and the verticals correction not was absolutely manual (It was with the autopano vertical lines correction help, a semi-authomatic tool). I will upload the raw files additionally. I have tried different perspectives, however, this is the one that best fits what I could see in the place, btw, I have been thinking take this photo for a while because the shape of these buildings has been intriguing to me , This is one of the strangest buildings I have ever seen. --The Photographer 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dllu it's taller than wider. I already saw with my own eyes... I didn't recognize by this photo... but as we have a lot of this mirror buildings I thought that was another one that I didn't know... see how different [9] [10] -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 03:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it looks that way, I have to

Oppose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm with Werner, especially in the distortion, not even close to the real building (to a point that I didn't recognize at first, that's the level), and in a sunny day ISO 800 1/320s with a 18mm???? The result is kind of obvious... noisy picture. And this HDR look bothers me a lot, I don't know why that QI pass, and this is passing, lack of contrast is a photo killer, this bad processed image should not be FP... And I put a note about a bad artefact. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 03:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Must oppose because of the distortion. Charles (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative perspective correction version

Info Based on Colin, dllu and Berthold Werner, I was working in a alt version with a manual perspective fix, however without a noise reduction fix and nod hdr. Please, let me know what do you think. Thanks again --The Photographer 02:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stills abnormal distorted, for educational purpose, this should not be approved. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 03:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the manual fix is too crude. It appears you have horizontally compressed the sides, resulting in a change in proportions that doesn't match typical perspectives. I think RTA has a point that perhaps this lowers the EV too much. Have you tried "Vedutismo" (aka "Panini general" in Hugin) for this? That won't stretch the horizontals, and will retain straight lines for vertical and for diagonals that come from the midpoint. So provided you centre your image appropriately, it should minimise the curving that a cylindrical projection can produce. Also I think this one has too much NR which has lot detail in the paving stones, and the colours are much less happy than the first one. -- Colin (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Must oppose because of the distortion. Charles (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Rochaverá Corporate Towers, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg

File:Task Force Police officer in Sweden.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2017 at 19:16:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Created, nominated by Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as uploader/nominator - Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a good photo and it has documentary value but while it is easy to be emotionally swayed by this photo so close to the attack, I think it lacks the wow-impact required for an FP. It would be more suited for an FP on Wikipedia or VI here under the scope "Swedish task force police officer in 2017" or something like that. --cart-Talk 08:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO, no WOW. Sorry. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monasterio de Cocos, Rumanía, 2016-05-28, DD 52-54 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 20:59:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Ceiling of the church of the Cocoș Monastery, Romania. The monastery, located in a forest clearing 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) of Niculițel, was built between 1883 and 1913 and is dedicated to the Dormition of the Theotokos. All by me. Poc o² 20:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know that this image is a HDR, however, the colors are amazing, tell me a bit what is the feeling inside this church. Thanks for share this image. --The Photographer 22:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 23:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very pleasant colors Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But shouldn't the line at the bottom be parallel to the image frame? Besides that I don't think HDR was necessary here, the windows are blown anyways. And f/8 should have been enough, too. The result is still very good. --Code (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Code, Martin: I fixed those issues (I recovered the windows and now the bar at the bottom is parallel to the frame), sorry for the late response I was traveling. Poc o² 10:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 10:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sahuaro en Floor - Blooming sahuaro cactus 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2017 at 03:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by Tomascastelazo -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question I think for the most part it is a nice image, though I have one question: according to the metadata on the file (assuming it is correct), it says the lens focal length was 516mm, meaning you were using telephoto lens; how far exactly were you from the subject? For the subject matter and the situation, why wasn't it appropriate to use a typical standard zoom lens? Maybe it's a specific question, and I haven't done much nature photography, but it interested me to find out the rationale behind the photograph when I saw that. One more thing: is "sahuaro" synonymous with saguaro? WClarke 04:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WClarke, yes, Sahuaro=saguaro... As far as the lens, this sahuaro was about 15-20 feet tall and the flowers generally are up on top and pointing up, so in order diminish the angle I backed away and closed in with the lens. The flowers are shown in different stages and I particularly liked the bees. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Same classification issues as with the photo of eagles above. I'm liking this but I'm not ready to vote on it yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikan Kekek it is a Carnegiea gigantea, and there is good info here #REDIRECT[[11]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Poor lighting; mostly in shade. This has neither the great depth provided by sunlight nor the soft tones of an overcast day. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marine eagle and chick.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2017 at 03:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My first impression on seeing the thumbnail is that this was a great photo, and I'm going with that. The motion blur, in my opinion, is fine. There's a bit of bookkeeping to take care of, though. The eagles should be identified by their Latin species, which I would think there would be a Commons category for, too, that this should be in. Also, the Featured pictures category should be /Animals/Birds, I believe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bird is mostly out of focus and noisy. The composition is unfortunate as we only see the back of the bird and it is in shade. Crop is tight. Charles (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As per Charles Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Charles --Ermell (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Charles said what I was thinking, and if he thinks they make this photo unfeaturable I second his judgement. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not only about the eagle itself but of a moment with the eagle returning to the nest to the chick... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's a great VI moment, just not a great photo. Charles (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - even if you argue that it's not about the bird but instead about the interaction between mother(?) and chick, I don't think it excels in that realm, either. The chick is diminutive and partially obscured, and, regardless of intent, the tight crop does emphasize the adult as the main subject, leaving only a small sliver of nest protruding into the frame. It's a fine picture, one that I'd be proud to have taken myself, but not up to FP standards IMO. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:PIA21421 - Abstract Concept of TRAPPIST-1 System.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2017 at 11:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration · Jet Propulsion Laboratory · California Institute of Technology - uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A unique depiction of the TRAPPIST-1 system, made for the cover of Nature, highlighting the system's star, planets and habitable zone in an artistic way. Striking and useful. -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good educational value with the different states of H₂O. --cart-Talk 12:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Am I the only one who finds this a ridiculous depiction? Interplanetary space is not a flat surface that water and snowflakes sit on top of, and water vapor probably isn't escaping the atmosphere of any planet in huge plumes like that. I doubt the educational value of this artist's conception, because anyone who thinks this model could possibly remotely represent what any solar system is likely to look like is going to get it wrong. And if this were presented solely as a work of art, it's not quite impressive enough to me for me to want to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - nobody is saying that this is a strictly accurate depiction of the TRAPPIST-1 system. It is educational in the sense that it depicts with accuracy the habitable zone of the system and where the planets are in respect to that zone. Of course your view that it isn't "impressive enough" is entirely your opinion, and I'm not opposed to that part of your argument. What I am opposed to is you incorrectly stating what the educational part of this artwork is supposed to be. I'm aware of the stereotype of Featured image nominees being derailed after snowing support, but derailed for reasons that are irrelevant to the nominee itself, I'm just not gonna let happen. -- PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going to do about it? You have your opinion, and I have mine. I've been a space enthusiast since 1969, when I witnessed the Apollo 11 moon launch and watched every day of that amazing first trip to the moon on a black & white TV when I was 4, and though I went into music instead of astronomy as a profession, I surely know what I'm talking about in this instance. Be temperate, please. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan You suggest people might wrongly think this "model" "represents" a solar system. But it is clearly titled "abstract concept", not a "scale model" or "artists impression of". I think if Nature are happy to have it on their cover, then clearly there are some who think this has value as a work of art on an educational project. Philip, your "not gonna let that happen" comment is out of order. Nominating at FP is a bit of a game of roulette. I have no problem with an oppose vote making people "think twice" about piling on support. It happens all the time. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. In this case, though, I happen not to find it useful as an image out of the context that being on the cover of "Nature" provides, for the reasons I state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting. But they should rotate around the sun, even in abstract. Water, snow... --Mile (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Charles (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan; sometimes "artists' impressions" of space go too far, and to a point can be cliché. Impressions of space to me should be more technical than artistic. Even just for the TRAPPIST-1, I would much prefer this image. WClarke 19:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - there really should some sort of way to prevent snowing supports being derailed. It happens way too much on Featured picture nominations and destroys alot of users' trust in the system, such as my own. People should just oppose if they want to oppose, and not wait until something has a substantial amount of support first. It's just wrong. PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you have a problem with when people are able to look at a picture? You are being unreasonable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip four additional supports is hardly "snow support". Plenty "wow" PFs get 10 supports within a few hours. I don't think people are deliberately waiting for anything. The SSSSOOOO pattern can happen because someone finds a flaw that others hadn't considered or give weight to. Whether you agree with that flaw, is another matter, but it puts something out there for consideration. Lots of voters are shy to oppose and are not brave enough to be the first. It shows, of course, that other people's votes influence subsequent votes, which is something we tried to avoid at Photo Challenge. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the first oppose came just 16 hours after the image was nominated, so it's pretty nonsensical to suggest that anybody has deliberately delayed their comment so as to defy the previous supporters. You seem to be demanding that any opposition not recorded immediately upon the start of discussion should be discounted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Video of Chadar trek done in 2014 by Sumita Roy.webm, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 16:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Sumita Roy Dutta - uploaded by Sumita Roy Dutta - nominated by Sumita Roy Dutta -- Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would totally support this if it was not just a "static" video of the campsite but something shot along the route. As is it's not exactly interesting, if one doesn't know what the Chadar trek is it's just a bunch of people hanging out on ice. If you happen to have more I'm for one would love to see them. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KennyOMG. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality video in general like lack of Image stabilization --The Photographer 01:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --cart-Talk 15:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a very nice scene, and I like the overall subject and character of it, but as others have pointed out, VGA resolution is not sufficient for FP, especially considering the video is only a couple of years old. Also as a side-note, in the description the date listed is the upload date, not the date the video was created. Sorry. WClarke 18:38, 15 April 2017 (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 has no real chance of overcoming all these 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) 14:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesias rupestres de Basarbovo, Bulgaria, 2016-05-27, DD 22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 19:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info View of the Rock-hewn Churches of Basarbovo, Ruse in north-eastern Bulgaria. The oldest written mention of the bulgarian-orthodox cave monastery dates to the 15th century in an Ottoman tax register. Poc o² 19:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning subject and great framing. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little unsharp at the top but that's not where it would matter. Plus nice to have another BG FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I feel like the light damages the photo. I'd love to see this view in light that's less assertively white. The top that Daniel referred to bothers me, not just in terms of unsharpness but the way the sky looks at the upper right. Basically, I think this is a great motif that could be photographed more superbly at a different time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with Ikan. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition unbalanced (maybe need more space in the left) and top problem cited by Ikan --The Photographer 11:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the light background actually accentuates the shape, works nicely with the rest of the image. -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, it's very white/bright, sorry. --cart-Talk 07:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 19:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common railroad crossing.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2017 at 20:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 20:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would like more width in the image (landscape format) so that the outer rails are in the picture. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having all the rails in the photo would make this a totally different picture. Perhaps I will do one like that some day, but for now I wanted to focus on the strong X-shape of the crossing. --cart-Talk 21:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I really liked this shot when I saw it at QIC a few days ago. Excellent symmetry, strong shapes, interesting textures. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good structure (and nearly monochromatic by the rusted rails and the sleepers) --PtrQs (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NO FP quality. Sorry ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't know whether I consider the subject not interesting enough per se to be an FP or whether (I think more likely) the lines aren't long enough or something else enough to do it for me, but I'm not feeling this as special enough for FP. Very sorry not to be able to be more specific. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to explain Ikan, I think that it is as simple as people are more likely to be attracted to pretty things. Myself, I like the warm, musty color and texture of rust and old wood, that's what spoke to me in this photo. But I also know I'm the odd one out most of the time. ;) --cart-Talk 07:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support X marks the spot, per my QIC promotion of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ah well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I might as well close it. Thanks for the comments anyway. :) --cart-Talk 20:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Madonna with the Christ Child, by Pieter de Grebber.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2017 at 07:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Pieter Fransz. de Grebber - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Jan Arkesteijn -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jan, I follow the source indicated on the file description page. I download the Afbeeldingen_Maria.zip and extract "4.Maria met kind, Pieter Fransz- de Grebber, 1632- Gemeentemuseum Jacob van Hoorne, Weert.jpg" from it. The image is nearly the same dimensions but different size and quite different colour tone and levels. The EXIF is also quite different. Please can you indicate where you got this JPG from and if it is altered from the original source. I do not approve of amateur edits to colour/brightness/contrast/etc on professionally created photos of artworks. So will oppose unless the image matches the source. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, the size is the same. As for the EXIF, I add everything I can find about the painting, so it differs. The colour balance is mine. If you think there is a need for the unedited source, feel free to upload it. I nominated this image, not the other one, though. So please oppose if you think this is not enough quality. But opposing for other reasons is rather curious. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, we don't generally move comments to the talk page unless really off topic, so I've moved this back. Ok, I

strong oppose. The file description is not an honest declaration -- the image we have uploaded on Commons is not the same as the source. Please upload professionally taken photos/scans of artworks unaltered. Then if you plan to do more than minor dust/scratch removal, you need to create your own separate upload filename and state what you have changed. File:The Madonna with the Christ Child, by Pieter de Grebber, edited by Jan Arkesteijn.jpg. You can't just muck about with colour balance and tone to suite your eye and you certainly can't do this without declaring it. Jan, you've been warned at AN/U about your cavalier attitude to other people's works and dishonesty with sourcing before. You claim, in the source field, that this image is from "Museum voor Religieuze Kunst Jacob van Horne, Weert". It is simply disrespectful of the photographers/scanners at that museum to have their work amateurishly altered and yet claimed to be unchanged. Since the file is PD, you are welcome to make whatever edits you like, but only to your own derivative work with a separate filename, and with honesty about what viewers are seeing. -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I am sorry to see that your personal opinion stands in the way of judging an image on its merits. A strong oppose has nothing to do with the image in question. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, I suggest you read the criteria for FP. For an artwork reproduction we expect that it is exactly that: a reproduction. Not "coloured and toned to Jan Arkesteijn personal taste". While museum photographers are not infallible, it is their job to reproduce the image professionally. Despite my comments, you have not edited the file to indicate the changes you have made. Therefore that page is still dishonest: the image we have is not the image from the source. Our criteria state: "An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced.". In fact our FPC criteria mention this twice. Our repository of artworks only has value if we are totally open about the source and any changes made to reproductions we hold. I have to say, that if it your practice to upload significantly altered images (as this one is), while claiming it is a file taken from a given source, then another visit to AN/U might be required. -- Colin (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per resolution of issue identified by Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happy to upload the original into this filename, and copy Jan's version to a different name such as suggested above. But that would alter the image under nomination here, and it is Jan's nomination. So I won't make that change just now unless Jan agrees or withdraws. He's welcome to nominate his own colour-altered version of the photo, as long as its filename and file-description-page are honest. I'd still oppose that one, though. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --Code (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I didn't realize this image was not eligible to run for featured picture. I felt the criticism was personal, but seeing what happens with this image makes me realize I was dealing with a wiseacre. The idea that a painting has an absolute colour is false. It starts changing the moment the varnish is applied. It changes under ambient light. It changes because of the photographic methods. It simply is never the same. If you don't agree, just look here. Or have a look a the so hailed Google Art. There is some pretty bad stuff there, as well. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jan any more personal attacks and I shall request you are blocked. I am fully aware that paintings vary according to age, ambient light, etc. There are, however, professional techniques for accurately recording the colours of artworks, which require the use of colour checker calibration charts, careful use of lighting, professional processing software and calibrated monitors, etc. Some museums have this capability and some do not. What is certain is that this image is your own personal interpretation of what colours/tone we should all see, and yet the file description page continues to dishonestly state that this JPG comes from the "Museum voor Religieuze Kunst Jacob van Horne, Weert". As for File:Meisje met de parel.jpg it is quite clear that the nominated photo is inferior in many ways, and since FP is about "finest" then that is what matters. We can have different versions of an artwork, and we can choose which version/processing we think is best, but what we mustn't do is lie to our viewers and reusers about where the image came from and what changes have been made to it. -- Colin (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Colin: I uploaded the original file without alterations, however, the user is reverting me --The Photographer 11:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Overwriting existing files. User:The Photographer, Don't edit war over a version. Jan's version is permitted on Commons and while I think the filename should ideally indicate it has been edited, there isn't any policy that requires that. Since the original upload is his, then he gets first-mover-advantage. I suggest you upload to a new filename. What you can do, is edit the page description of this nomination file to indicate that it has been significantly retouched by Jan. Should Jan edit war over that, then a trip to AN/U would likely result in a block. As for what file the Wikipedia's link to, that's up to them. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Во Лазарополе.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2017 at 23:27:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I, for one, am, or rather would be, much more interested in what lies beyond these two hills, instead of them taking up 70% of the space. Since this is super-subjective and I don't have any other issues will vote neutral. -- KennyOMG (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Love the scenery, but the colors sort of remind me of an old print, and on close inspection I see why—it is a very noisy image, with seriously blown clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --cart-Talk 08:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salar de Pujsa, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 02.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 06:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I realize this means I have two photos by Diego up concurrently, but there are so many things I love about this picture of a very white-salty salt flat, a lake with flamingos, barren desert hills and striking clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a somewhat tighter crop could improve the picture even more though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not working for me, I'm afraid. The bottom third is just "noise". The sky. Meh, particularly the white cloud on the right. The flamingos need a magnifying glass to see (when one looks at the whole picture). I'd quite like to see this view as a 360. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid that I've to agree about the lack of wow. Anyhow thank you, Ikan, for the nom! Poc o² 19:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the image creator himself isn't wowed ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matevž (Slovenian cuisine).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 08:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info Matevž (Slovenian cuisine). My shot. --Mile (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no wauw to me. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I must say that I like the angle this is photographed in and everything around the plate is well executed, but the photo is way too blue in WB. The dish does not look appetizing at all and about a third of the white plate has no structure. More glistening surfaces/highlights on the food, like it just came from a sizzling hot frying pan and some side light to give shadows and structure to the food would have been better. --cart-Talk 08:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unfortunately, per Cart. Food photography is extremely difficult and this is certainly an above-average shot, but it's not up to FP standards. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian and cart. QI for sure, but it looks like it was microwaved. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baggertransportleiding drijft in de Noorder Oudeweg 08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2017 at 17:06:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Mud conveyor line for transport of water diluted mud for dredging depot. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but no wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground, in which is the main subject, is rather dark, and there is little contrast. I will admit that I do like the geometric properties of the two rectangular platforms (was that what drew you into the scene?), and the way they rise from the surface of the water, but the dark lighting and dull colors drag down their aesthetic. The lighting in the background is nice, and the boat is interesting, but IMO does not make up for the other aspects of the photograph. Sorry. WClarke 17:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The pontoons on which the pipeline is located are old and rusty, so little contrast. The construction of the image with the old boat in the background attracted me.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Daniel Case. Daphne Lantier 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not an interesting enough scene or composition for me for FP, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:20170211 Szydłów 4234.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2017 at 04:53:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Szydłów Castle in Poland. All by me -- -- Jakubhal 04:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Jakubhal 04:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting juxtaposition of subjects with time of year and technically a QI but no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Daniel Case. Daphne Lantier 22:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not that sharp, and for some reason, I feel like I'd like more room past the end of the castle at the left side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Jakubhal 03:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cognitive Bias Codex - 180+ biases, designed by John Manoogian III (jm3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2017 at 18:39:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
Info Algorithmic design, upload, and nomination: Jm3. (talk) All 188 cognitive biases from Wikipedia:List of Cognitive Biases.
Support -- Jm3 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per all the tags. It should really be in some other format, preferably SVG although PNG would work, and the watermark needs to go. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seems user-unfriendly to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SVG please (not raster) --The Photographer 19:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback on file formats, I'll re-submit once I've uploaded an uncompressed PNG, as per tags and feedback here. ✌🏼 Jm3 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Badlands National Park, South Dakota 04596u.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 13:46:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful place, very good quality, great composition. -- Yann (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Has some CA and noise, but I assume Ms. Highsmith knew what she was doing. Daniel Case (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We're all undoubtedly grateful to Carol Highsmith for her generosity in contributing so many great and useful images to the public domain, but in my opinion, this is a VI and would be a QI if non-Commoners could provide them, but not an FP. The composition isn't quite compelling enough, nor the hills sharp enough, for me to consider it more than a very good photo. I think I prefer File:MK00630 Badlands Panorama Point.jpg, but that one is too small for me to support it for FP. Perhaps one of you will take a trip to South Dakota and take an awe-inspiring photo of the Badlands, but I don't think this is quite it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She does have an account here and occasionally uploads images directly. One could make the case, then, that this does count as "the work of Commons contributors"... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's undoubtedly a strong QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried that. I suppose she would laugh at our contest... Yann (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Llez (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Severe CAs on the left and right side --Llez (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Црква „Св. Ѓорѓи“ - Старо Нагоричане.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 07:39:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by M.pvsk - uploaded by M.pvsk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI but insufficient wow for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. As photographed it just looks a little too boxy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puente de Piedra, Skopie, Macedonia, 2014-04-16, DD 91.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2017 at 14:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very good. I ask this because I'm not sure: Should the highlights be just slightly reduced, and should the sky be denoised a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: the (selective) denoising was definitely required, I also applied a reduction of highlights but not the maximum possible as the result looked then overall too dark. Poc o² 20:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In one of the most recent edits, parts of the foreground became so blurry that it's almost as if a fake tilt-shift filter has been applied. Extreme NR? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the foreground in the river is really blurry now. Poco_a_poco, please revert that area of the photo or do something else to make it less blurry, as it's now disconcerting, whereas I wasn't bothered by it before. Most of the rest of the photo is better in this edit, but it's not worth the tradeoff, if those are the only two alternatives. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I think that you are right, it was fin for the sky but too much for that area. I removed it from the denoising mask. Should be ok now. Poc o² 20:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still troubled by the degree of blurring in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support if you revert back to this revision or something similar. I think the exposure has been pushed too far in recent edits, causing the noise and smudged highlights to show through quite prominently. The foreground blurring is still disturbing, as noted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but the dark blurry foreground does nothing for the photo. It almost makes it look like one of those "tilt-shift miniature photos" and I guess that was not the intention. --cart-Talk 09:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @W.carter, Ikan Kekek, Juliancolton, and Daniel Case: I've cropped the bottom a bit and now I could remove the bottom from the denoising mask, so that it isn't blurred. Poc o² 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see a reason why this can't be Supported. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost forgot, thank you Kiril! :) Poc o² 18:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Alright, I'm satisfied now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, I'm no longer sure that this photo, with its technical shortcomings, is one of the best on the site, so I'm now uncommitted and will spend more time deciding whether to support, oppose, or simply remain neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 seda sertar 2013d.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 10:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting face, but the crop is quite random. At the very least, it needs a crop on the left to remove the man in blue. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Done -- Thennicke (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot going on here and I'm not wowed by it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Michael & All Angels, Hughenden - April 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 21:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- DeFacto (talk). 21:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DeFacto (talk). 21:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily support if you get rid of the distracting branches in the upper-left. Since they're exclusively over a plain sky, it should be quite easy to remove them with content-aware fill in Photoshop. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seconded the branch request. -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Juliancolton, KennyOMG, how's that? DeFacto (talk). 22:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - perfect, thanks for taking care of that so quickly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first sight I wanted to support because it's a lovely church and the qualilty seemed very high. But then I noticed that there's no colourpsace information embedded in the picture (strictly speaking there's no EXIF data at all and I don't see a reason for that) and after having a second look I think that the cut stones in the foreground spoil the composition. After having a third look I ask myself if there wasn't a better possibility to take this picture than choosing a centered composition. --Code (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: I've restored the EXIF and colourspace data, they were somehow lost in my previous upload. Thanks for the heads-up. DeFacto (talk). 06:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Charming. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stones in bottom. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiyomizu-dera, Kyoto, November 2016 -02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2017 at 09:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Japan
Info Main Hall of Kiyomizu-dera, Kyoto, Japan, during Koyo, part of UNESCO World Heritage Site Ref. Number 688. Although I've already successfully nominated another image of the temple's main hall, I think this photo deserves a chance as well. Admittedly it doesn't show as many fiery red leaves but it provides a more complete view of the temple's general layout by including its famous three-storied pagoda. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per my !vote for the other image. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joalpe (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit busy at bottom left+not sharp at far left, however the composition, light and colors make it a successful image IMO Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Is this a successful image? Sure, absolutely. But is it an FP? Not to me. I know there's no way to avoid the vegetation on the right side and get the rest of the photo, but to my eyes, that vegetation prevents it from being an FP. If only the upper half of it could have been cut down. :-) (Sorry, I'm not smiling at opposing, but at the absurd suggestion I just gave.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Does this comply with the renomination procedure? I thought they have to have be submitted filename.jpg/2 Charles (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Charles: This is not a renomination. In case you're referring to the "-02" - that's just a (personal) sequential number and as such part of the original file name... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC) sorry. I thought I'd seen it before Charles (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SH-60 Seahawk approaches the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2017 at 19:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Chief Petty Officer Spike Call - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Krassotkin --sasha (krassotkin) 19:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sasha (krassotkin) 19:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm really not a fan of the composition. The only thing in focus is the highly uninteresting wheel, which obscures much of the aircraft carrier. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique, uncommon, extremely rare, has many important elements and makes me want to be a top gun --The Photographer 10:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Julian. Yann (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. A challenging picture to take, no doubt, but I am more wowed by CPO Call's daring in taking the image than the image itself, alas. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Épico ^{(talk)/(contribs)} 19:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad photo... and just a thought: how much more killing machines we will promote here? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uncommon scene, in the second view becomes the human head the to main object. Best of Reportagefotografie. --Zoppo59 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - It's obvious this photo is not going to be featured, but I disagree that it's a "bad photo". The top crop is not ideal, but otherwise, it gives a human element of the scene, as we see the naval pilot (co-pilot?) viewing the aircraft carrier just before landing. And as for "promoting killing machines": I don't think that supporting a good photo, which I believe this to be, is pro-war or anti-war; it's just pro-this photograph. But I do respect that for each of us, some kinds of images may produce a visceral reaction of disgust. In fact, I respect that much more than ideological opposition to a photograph, which seems to me to be kind of dangerous ground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Typhoon F2 fighter aircraft (top) from 11 Squadron, RAF Coningsby in close formation with a Tornado F3 MOD 45147961.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2017 at 20:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by SAC Ben Stevenson - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Dura-Ace -- Dura-Ace (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dura-Ace (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 10:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty small picture, nothing wow here, have some CA, and the objects are too close to the end of the frame. Don't have movement. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 21:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per RTA. Not enough room ahead. Just 2 more killing machines. No wow. Yann (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conjunto Nacional em preto e branco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 04:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by WClarke -- WClarke 04:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me this picture captured a seemingly natural view of this building, as if you were on the street, showing the stacks upon stacks of tenements (I assume) and worn out air conditioners stretching far into the air. It is worth noting that this building (the Conjunto Nacional in São Paulo), if you wanted to see more of it, was the subject of an FP by the The Photographer a few years ago; in these shots the building's worn-out nature comes through, but from farther away, as seen here, it's not quite as ugly as I expected it be. It's interesting how buildings like these, especially similar brutalism-type structures, seem to be aging much faster than much older buildings from other architectural movements, despite them seeming very revolutionary at the time. Anyway, thought it was worth nominating. -- WClarke 04:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perespective erore. It seems not looks good with the right-lower shade. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The 60% of the building was cut in this shoot, lens distortion and horizontal distortion, another building in foreground is distracting, it look like a smartphone vertical shoot. I'm sorry --The Photographer 09:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You, you talking about distortion? Really:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rochaverá Corporate Towers, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg you are so dishonest and unethical. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 20:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Photographer: I usually wouldn't comment like this, and I do not like getting into unnecessary disputes, but could you back up your opposition to this nomination more thoroughly? In the recent nomination for File:SH-60 Seahawk approaches the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76).jpg, you supported the image rather positively, despite that image having every feature present in the photograph that you criticize in this image. The image of the aircraft carrier contains (1) barrel distortion, despite you criticizing "lens distortion" in this image, (2) it contains a "distracting" foreground element (the wheel of the aircraft), which you criticize in this image, and (3) it contains a "smartphone vertical" aspect ratio, as does this image. It seems that in the image of the aircraft carrier that you like the subject matter, though obviously you like the subject matter in this image also, as you have an FP of the same building. And granted, the concerns you bring up in this image are valid concerns, but between these two nominations there appears to be some inconsistency in your judgement, for whatever reason. You have a right to your own opinions, but something about that just seemed off to me. WClarke 00:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:WClarke, thanks for your comment. This photo is very good, however, I consider that this photograph is very inferior and not a different angle than this other FP with a distracting building element in the foreground and a vertical and cut composition. IMHO, a photo of a building is a type of static photograph easy to take and think and IMHO can be performed more easily than an image taken from the small window of a jet landing on an aircraft carrier. BTW, additionally there is the human factor, not all the same rules can be applied in the same way on a nomination. My judgments are usually made objectively, however, it is increasingly difficult when I receive such strong criticism of my comments when it is only a sincere judgment to improve the quality of other users -It's not your case, of course (see also)-. --The Photographer 01:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Your opinions are justified, and I understand your reasoning. IMO, I like both photographs very much, and my comment wasn't meant to be disrespectful or cause tension, I just wanted to hear a further explanation. Before commenting and nominating I wasn't aware of any history between you and other users, and by no means was trying to impose or take sides in any disagreements, I too only was looking for constructive discussion on photography. Sorry for confusion. Thanks. WClarke 04:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The corner unfortunately ruins the effect for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirchspiel, Visbeck (Skulptur nahe Marienkapelle) -- 2011 -- 2154.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 08:44:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Striking and well lit. I don't love the background, but I think this is an FP, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual and interesting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Because of many CAs everywhere--Llez (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't find the CAs. But I tried to improve the image. Hopefully it's better now. --XRay ^talk 12:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better now. I meant the red an green lines along the borders which look like CAs (I made an annotation of a the part of the picture, where you can (still) find them) --Llez (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hint. The green CAs are fixed too. I haven't seen this and it was difficult because of the green background. --XRay ^talk 05:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose An interesting work, but the picture seems not to add anything to it that would make it wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The carving itself is great, but the photo is nothing exceptional. I'd expect the "eyes" to have the sharpest focus, but they're quite soft... and the rest of the image isn't particularly sharp, either. There's still noticeable CA, especially near the corners. With a straightforward shot in a controlled environment like this, I'd want to see extraordinary technical quality and it just isn't there, unfortunately. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Побережье Японского моря, Хасанский район. Панорама.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 12:39:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The coast of the Sea of Japan on the peninsula of Bruce. Primorsky Krai, Russia. . Created by Андрей Кровлин - uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's got to be a limit of how much ps is acceptable. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I hear you - but the image is so well done...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Any kind of sunset where the foreground is visible (as opposed to being a black silhouette) is going to be heavily postprocessed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm inclined to support this picture, but I'd like to know what "ps" is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I'd guess they refer to the ultima ratio of postprocessing: PhotoShop --PtrQs (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ~~But since I care more about the result, Support.~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's going on with the green splotches in the orange flowers? Some sort of blending error? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, everything is sharp, beautiful colours --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I don't like such heavily processed pictures but this one works for me. I don't really know why. It's a thin line between just enough and too much postprocessing but I think this one is still on the right side. --Code (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this is just to much postprocessing for me. I can't even call it that well done with the green mishaps in the orange flowers. --cart-Talk 12:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose, per the green splotches on the flowers cart points out. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled my support vote because of the green splotches that others have noted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Sorry, the colors just look too unnatural and "perfect", and IMO it looks more like a stock photo than a photo that genuinely represents the scene and place where it was taken. WClarke 18:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the aforementioned processing artifacts. The uploader has sadly not edited in quite some time so reprocessing seems unlikely in this case. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The green spots on orange flowers totally ruin this candidacy for me. I'm also in the "too much ps" camp. PumpkinSky talk 13:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Saúde - Brazil (Our Lady of Health).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2017 at 12:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by -- The Photographer 12:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting colors in nice detail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way over processed. The EXIF confirms: Vibrance +100. Clarity +100. Highlights -100. Shadows +100. Blacks -31. Please can we reproduce church interior art with some faithfulness. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Dear Colin, thanks for your comment. It was the combination of severals pictures using layers in Photoshop, maybe the EXIF is not reflecting exactly the alteration. I uploaded another version more close to the reality. Looking for anothers pictures in google you will see that the colors are naturally saturated. A hug. --The Photographer 12:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's improved the colours (though still perhaps too vivid?), but contrast still feels too high. I compare with File:Interior da Paróquia Nossa Senhora da Saúde (Vila Mariana - São Paulo - SP) (01).jpg and File:Interior da Paróquia Nossa Senhora da Saúde (Vila Mariana - São Paulo - SP).jpg. There's now quite a large area in shadow. I wonder if there is a better time of day/year to photograph this when it is more evenly lit? Also, as a crop of the whole scene, that is always a much harder sell at FP. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliosperma alpestre Ötschergräben 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 05:17:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Order_:_Caryophyllales
Info Heliosperma alpestre (syn. Silene alpestris) found in the Ötscher Canyon, nature park Ötscher-Tormäuer, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the diameter of this flower? If it's tiny, you might help your case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Ikan Kekek and Daniel Case: Diameter of the flower is about 20mm, or maybe less. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending an answer to Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well executed and pleasing picture, but not enough wow for me for FP. Sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I basically agree with Slaunger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montana horses.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 21:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Montanabw - uploaded by Montanabw - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 21:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 21:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Feels good but not outstanding to me. The light is a little hazy, and the horses aren't super-sharp, so I'm judging this as a "horses-in-landscape" photo. The landscape is quite nice but not so unbelievably fantastic that what I see as shortcomings in this picture are sufficiently counterbalanced for a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek: I would be interested in a more detailed critique if you'd like to comment further at my talkpage... I'm particularly interested in improving on the technical side...which is, I think, where you are seeing "shortcomings"? Montanabw (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, I have very little technical knowledge about photography; I can only say what I see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly OK, Ikan, I'm just learning the FP process here at Commons -- I figured out the Featured Article process at en.wiki, and any form of feedback is useful. Montanabw (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Camera wasn't held horizontal. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jan Arkesteijn: Can you explain what you mean by this? I was holding the camera horizontally... ? Montanabw (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw, it feels the image is not horizontal. Closer inspection confirms the image is tilted to the right. Just a bit, but enough to notice it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jan Arkesteijn -- can you possibly add an annotation like W.carter did to show me where you were looking to see the tilt? Was it the fence in front of the two mares? (I see it is a wee bit off level when I use post-processing tools on the original) I'm trying to train my eye to catch this stuff -- I CAN straighten an image -- and thought I had! Anything else that the others haven't already mentioned? Montanabw (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fence and the horse on the right suggest everything is tilted, but of course that is not decisive. So I had to zoom on the houses in the background to get the conformation. Anyway, this seems nitpicking. It is the overall impression of tilt that made me make my comment. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Ikan. It's a nice photo but it is not outstanding enough for FP IMO, sorry. --cart-Talk 10:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- W.carter: Ditto to what I asked of Ikan, above... interested in ways to improve, particularly on the technical side... Montanabw (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)Ok, will do. It looks like you have used autofocus and the sharpness has ended up on the fence instead of on the horses, had you used manual focus, perhaps with a 'following' function on one of the horses' heads it would have been better. You could have used f/11 and got the background a bit sharper, the light is not optimal for this shot since it is a bit flat and some shadows and bright sunlight would have added a "wow"-factor to the photo, the trees in the background have almost no detail in the foliage. You also have just a bit too much in the photo, the view gets divided in two section, it would have been better if you had made a pic of just the left side (see note) that would have given you two clear lines of fence with the horses in the rule-of-thirds section. Now the fence only leaves the viewer with a feeling of being fenced in. If you use raw format to photograph in, there are functions in some programs to reduce the haze in the distance. Since I also guess that you are used to handling horses, maybe you could have used some trick to get the horse(s) to have their head over the fence instead of behind it like it is with one of them here. Had these things gone right, this photo might have had the wow-factor we are always looking for here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... per your annotation -- simply cropping the image more, then...? Provided that doing so still has it at high enough resolution? Montanabw (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit quick on the draw there. I made the annotation first and was writing the full answer. It is not as simple as just cropping, you asked what could have been better and the annotation was only part of the answer. --cart-Talk 10:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That is just awesome feedback! Precisely what I am trying to learn... one problem I am having is that my eyesight is ... aging ... and operator error occurs with manual focus, but I can usually set AF to pinpoint one spot and get what I want most of the time...and now I DO "see" what you mean about focus on the fences! You are right about the rest of the composition problems too...horses are like... 1000-pound cats when it comes to getting photos of them -- there's a reason there are not a lot of great horse photos on commons ...LOL! One dilemma is the decision to go shutter priority or aperture priority in my settings -- I absolutely see that f/11 would have been better, but with horses, one also needs to stop motion ... would 1/100 still have "frozen" them? (ears up is the biggest challenge with horses, you hold down the shutter on sports setting and do goofy things to try and get those dang ears...) I deliberately set ISO at 100 to try and get rid of artefacts, could a higher ISO still have given me adequate quality? Any advice on ISO?? Montanabw (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to get very good photos of my cat by placing small treats and goodies just where I wanted it to have its head. Ever stuck a piece of tuna on a door post? --cart-Talk 10:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horses will sell their souls for carrots or compressed alfalfa hay pellets. Or grain... ! Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The fences get in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you all for the feedback so far, and I look forward to an opportunity to improve the quality of the images I submit. Thank you, Pine for your encouragement! Anyone here who wants to see another image I just uploaded and critique it at the file talkpage (for my future "eddification"), see File:Grazing Montana Horses.jpg -- it's uploaded with no post-processing, other than to convert from RAW to JPG. Montanabw (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Поглед на Мавровско Езеро.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 23:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose View might've made for an FP, but it's unsharp everywhere. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not special to me. Boring sky, for example. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 10:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbirds and Patrouille de France over Death Valley, April 2017, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 10:39:14 (UTC)

Info created by Tech. Sgt. Christopher Boitz - uploaded by Revent - nominated by Mareklug ^talk -- Mareklug ^talk 10:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. Very good quality set; highly informative. -- Mareklug ^talk 10:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perhaps highly informative, but many also very noisy. Also in my opinion too much pictures without more information (eg. the first and the second are nearly identical, the same is for the last two) --Llez (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (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: Please read the rules on "Set nominations". Although this is ten photos of the same subject by the same photographer, some from above, some from below, there is no natural bound to this set. They are just a random selection of photos taken that day. For example, I uploaded seventeen photos of the spiral staircase in City Hall London, but only nominated one at FP. I suggest you choose one you consider to be the "finest" and make a single nomination, but first also check out our existing FPs of this topic to check if they meet the grade. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2017 (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, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 10:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:20170305 Niedzica zamek 5195.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 06:24:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Niedzica Castle over the frozen Czorsztyn Lake. All by me -- Jakubhal 06:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 06:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support niezłe, choć wydaje się, że mogłoby być ciut ostrzejsze --Pudelek (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, getting the tallest tower right over that little cove. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 13:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Andersonvillesurvivor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 08:04:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info This a picture of one of the survivors of Andersonville Prison. Union Army soldier on his release from Andersonville in May, 1865 - uploaded by Jujutacular - nominated by Price Zero -- Price Zero (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Price Zero (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image quality leaves much to be desired, even considering the age. But both the historical significance and the visual impact wow me more than enough. In case Andersonville doesn't ring a bell, which is very likely unless you're American, you should read up on the highly interesting subject --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well restaured, maybe a scan from the film should be better if it exist of course. We can't ask more of this historic picture. It was difficult see this picture. --The Photographer 12:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment film?! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Negative" is the right term :-) --The Photographer 14:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possibly even "positive" in this case

--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- KTC (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an American who didn't need it explained. An important historical document of an early instance of a war crime that became all too common in the next century. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Value mitigates technical issues. A very strong picture. I'm happy to admit I had not heard of Andersonville before, and the picture made me curious to read about it. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. The picture reminds me of photos of survivors of Nazi concentration camps and is very painful to view. That's why it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Impossible to judge this photo. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Finnair Airbus A319-112 OH-LVL snowfall.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2017 at 10:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lentokonefani -- Lentokonefani (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator -- Lentokonefani (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When it comes to technical aspects, this probably isn't the best photo out there, but in my opinion the snowfall looks cool enough for this to be an FP. I'm no expert when it comes to photography, though, so let's see what others think. -- Lentokonefani (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Striking! But yes, the image quality is not so good - it's very rare for me to be voting support on a picture taken with a point-and-shoot. Small sensor and slow lens = noise, even at ISO 100. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quality is fine for me: It looks like a plane landing in a very heavy snowstorm. There is what looks like a very small dust spot under the plane about half way between the wings and the back, so that's worth investigating and if it is a dust spot, cleaning. Otherwise, though, I have no problem with this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well spotted. I think it was a dust spot. Fixed it. --Lentokonefani (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo taken under diffucilt circumstances --Michielverbeek (talk)!
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is really not good (grainy, unsharp), I also don't find it wow enough to neglect quality issues. Yes, an airplane landing in snowfall, so what? May the author and supporters pardon me, but for me it's not amongst the very best of Commons.. --A.Savin 14:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin regarding technical quality, which is a pity as I do find it an interesting photo. I have no inherent objection to supporting photos taken with point-and-shoot cameras, but this particular image is very grainy at the expense of actual detail. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a great composition and had it been taken with a better camera it would have been a slam-dunk. The technical quality is unfortunately too low. Also, I don't find the circumstances that difficult, taking photos during snowfall is done all the time where I live. --cart-Talk 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compact camera on terrible weather and faster exposition, I can't imagine how this picture could be better taking in consideration the moment conditions. Featured Images is more than just a perfect taken image, Featured Images is more than just have the last camera model, FP is to be in the perfect moment observing incredible things creating wonderful compositions and IMHO it's the case --The Photographer 23:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per The Photographer. --Yann (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed; there is more to this image than noise and a point-and-shoot camera. WClarke 18:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have never seen such an image before so the wow factor compensates for the low quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and good. -- Spurzem (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but the quality (incl. chromatic abberation: red edges) isn't ok for a FP image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kyrenia 01-2017 img04 view from castle bastion.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2017 at 00:29:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had this on my potential FP nominee list, too, and would have eventually nominated it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would be even better if the end of the boat wouldn't have been cut off but it's still impressing like this. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /cart-Talk 10:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lemberg (Schwäbische Alb) 360°.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2017 at 21:25:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's beautiful and impressive. Have you considered or done 360-degree views that we need to use the 360-degree viewer for? That could be more interesting in some ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I know, a few years ago the 360°-Viewer was also working with panoramas like this. But nowadays it seems only working with 360°*180°-panoramas. I´m don´t really interested in zenit and nadir. So I haven´t made shots of the simple buttom or empty sky. --Milseburg (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent. I feel like I'm there, breathing in the cold air, congratulating myself for getting here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and seven --Llez (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 16:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Munich Subway Station Georg-Brauchle-Ring, April 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 09:15:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info And now for something completely different, i.e. a nomination from the (hopefully not too) bold department: Metallic chairs on the platform level of Munich subway station Georg-Brauchle-Ring with incoming train - Dutch angle. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing, but don't like the corners cut. Sorry. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was impossible to avoid. Unfortunately there are trash cans attached on either side, so I couldn't choose my prefered angle freely. I don't think it's that big a problem anyway. The viewer has the impression of getting even closer to the chairs imo. But thanks for your vote and comment. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Strong sense of movement. Épico ^{(talk)/(contribs)} 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not. -- KTC (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, easily one of my favorite images of train/subway stations. WClarke 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Fresh take on a familiar subject. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Narcissus 'Ice Follies' 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2017 at 05:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Amaryllidaceae.
Info Narcissus 'Ice Follies' blooms with creamy white flowers. The crown is wide and has a wavy edge. There are several types of daffodils, often with some loud colors. The Narcissus 'Ice Follies' has a beautiful delicate inflorescence. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Simple, but very well done I think. I've always found daffodils extremely challenging to photograph, since the deep recesses and overlapping features often prevent you from getting the whole blossom properly lit and in acceptable focus. Nicely done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful and very good. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the bug. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 04:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Połonina Caryńska in the evening 4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2017 at 12:16:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 21:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support mystic --Zoppo59 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fascinating moment--Ermell (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now here the mood overwhelms that railing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Transaero (Siberian Tiger livery), EI-XLN, Boeing 747-412 (21544278369).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2017 at 02:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Airliners
Info created by Fedor Leukhin - uploaded by Helmy oved (and reuploaded higher resolution by Revent) - nominated by Juliancolton –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An extremely unique and striking photo with an interesting story to go along with it. The nose of this aircraft was painted to resemble a Siberian tiger to raise awareness for this endangered species, and the good folks at the airport blessed present photographers with a made-to-order rainbow (get a better look at the water cannon salute here). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame the photo you linked to isn't bigger, I like that one better (if some tarmac was cropped off) for an FP of this event. --cart-Talk 08:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I haven't decided whether to support, oppose or remain uncommitted on this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter, Ikan Kekek: High res photo of the other is not going to be possible, because Fedor's HD has failed and he has lost all photos from that time. Luckily he kept a copy of this masterpiece in high resolution and has made it available. 106.68.193.202 09:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Altogether a striking work of art/news photography. Certainly an aviation-themed photograph the likes of which I have never encountered before. --Mareklug ^talk 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely and unic, how it can be posible?, landing to paradise --The Photographer 09:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking combination of motifs usually not seen together. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A one in a million opportunity. Nice photo. --Dura-Ace (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ultimately, I think I agree with everyone that this deserves a feature based on pure novelty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather fun. Charles (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking and interesting --Schnobby (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Lentokonefani (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unknown, Iran, 17th Century - Silk Velvet Textile - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 13:01:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Silk velvet textile from Iran, 17th century. Created by unknown artist / Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge resolution of ancien art. -- Yann (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing quality --The Photographer 16:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Large number of pixels! ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Support per everyone else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slam-dunk support Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Us-2 04l.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2017 at 16:55:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Propeller_aircraft
Info created by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force - uploaded by Homulka - nominated by Dura-Ace -- Dura-Ace (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dura-Ace (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Room ahead a bit too short, and bad file name. But wow and quality are there. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and the person peeking out the window gives it some nice flavor. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 18:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be nice to know, though, if it was taking off or landing. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The crop is a little tight, but otherwise very nice. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View from Pico de la Zarza 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 04:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 05:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that you can see that trail on the mountainside at the left. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Violet Dancer (Argia fumipennis violacea) - Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2017 at 16:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged damselflies)
Info created & uploaded by Ryan Hodnett - nominated by Ryan Hodnett -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough of the insect in focus, and nice colors overall to complement it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dragonfly may not be as sharp and crystal-clear as we are used to at FPC, but that little bit of lichen makes this more of a complete composition than many similar photos. Nicely done! --cart-Talk 18:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Ermell (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:52, 12 April 2017
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand 15.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2017 at 06:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Betulaceae.
Info Walk across the Hulshorsterzand. Beautiful multi-stemmed birch (Betula) in an overgrown area. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice framing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No encyclopedic value. --Karelj (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Karelj: Encyclopedic value is not required here. That's for Wikipedia's FPC -- Thennicke (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although encyclopedic value isn't necessary here, of course this one has it. Could you please think about an article about birches, birches in its habitat, multistemming and landscapes of Hulshorsterzand... You get the idea? --Basotxerri (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Yosemite by Carol M. Highsmith.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 22:56:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Carol M. Highsmith (American photographer) - uploaded by User:Carolhi (not sure of identity) - nominated by Seb26 -- Super high resolution, appropriately licensed and connected with its entry in the Library of Congress online -- Seb26 (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seb26 (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info@Seb26: Carolhi is Carol Highsmith herself. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I had figured as much but didn't see any confirmation anywhere. Seb26 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info - From technical aspect: I see some dust specks - right beneath that eagle at 20.000 ft above Half Dome . Personally I think that highlighting all the shadows results in too much loss of depth and contrast. --PtrQs (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I love this photo and will vote for it when the dust spot(s) noted by PtrQs is (are) cleaned (I noticed only one, but I didn't look through the entire photo at full size). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo. Since the original tiff is available from the source, I offer to address the "dust spot" issue tonight when I get home. I'll upload the tiff also if we don't have it. I'm keen, though, to make only the most minor of changes, since this isn't some amateur snap, but a photo by a notable photographer. I don't personally think the dust spots are noticeable enough, considering the resolution, that they should affect voting intentions. -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light and the faint dust spots are not intrusive. OK quality all around. --cart-Talk 10:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a Carol Highsmith photograph this is beyond criticism, save for the dust spot, which I trust Colin to take care of. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gents! And Ladies! I little bit more iconoclasm, please. Highsmith is a true master and her donation to the LoC incredibly noble and generous. This nomination is - of course - fantastic, no doubt. But: Nobody should be "beyond criticism" and we should definitely not deepen the gap between "amateur snaps" and works by "notable" photographers. As head of a photo archive I've come to the conclusion that it usually takes an endless amount of very "snappy" attempts to produce a masterpiece now and then - for everybody. You could also have a look at this truly eye opening book to understand what I'm trying to say... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with you. And her 2009 photo of the South Dakota Badlands was criticized and looks unlikely to even pass at QIC, so in fact her work hasn't been beyond criticism on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martin. We have over 30,000 photographs by Highsmith, and surely they can't all be "beyond criticism" :-). It does look like Highsmith uploaded most/many of the photos taken on a shoot, rather than select just one winner. Btw, I uploaded a new version last night with dust spots removed. I tried to upload the original TIFF but it failed (it's pretty big) so I'll have to try another way. Oh, and while we're recommending books, many of Michael Freeman's books on photography show the process by which he thinks about, takes and selects his photos, with examples of the handful of shots that were taken. -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the TIFF: File:Yosemite by Carol M. Highsmith, 25612u.tif. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, I see you uploaded 25612u.tif. That isn't the file I worked from, choosing the larger 25612a.tif instead. However, it isn't clear to me what the differences were between the files. I'll have another look, comparing using Photoshop. The EXIF information is quite different and the format of the TIFF is different, and perhaps the size difference is simply down to compression. Do you know why LoC have both TIFF files? -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other one was already imported by Fae in 2016: File:Yosemite National Park spans eastern portions of Tuolumne, Mariposa and Madera counties in California LCCN2013635057.tif. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Martin, after years and years of looking at contact sheets (film & digital) searching for "The One Photo", I know exactly how many rolls it takes to make an excellent photo; even for master photographers. I always look at any photo with an open mind and it looks like I'll be the one who will fail her Badlands photo at QIC. --cart-Talk 07:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Скала Англичанка 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2017 at 12:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Anglichanka Rock, Republic of Buryatiya, Russia. Created by Mayfat - uploaded by Mayfat - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seb26 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Great lighting but perhaps just a little too dark. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really striking and to my eyes, vividly photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Soft at full magnification and perhaps slightly oversaturated, but a wonderful scene. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice composition and light, but the shadows in the middle are a bit too blue for my tastes, has little posterization, and has also a bit of CAs. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast between the irregular, fractal rock and the smooth, curvilinear snow. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a problem with the white balance. According the Exif-data the photo was taken at 12:21 (noon), and not at sunrise or sunset, which would have caused "yellowish" snow. So I'm not shure, if the white balance is correct or not. --Llez (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harbour of Sète at dawn cf01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2017 at 06:27:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I already liked this one very much when I saw it on QIC. --Code (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnifique. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition. WClarke 18:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the road curving in front. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No cars. The future?--Ermell (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol :) in the south of France, we like to sleep in, it's too early to be congested by cars... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not like the composition, almost half of the image just shows a boring road. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1, also too much sky for me (when one part is entirely featureless, I wouldn't do rule of thirds, but rather 3:4 or an even larger ratio). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /cart-Talk 13:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Decollazione del Battista (Matthias Stom).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2017 at 19:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, all those little bluish-white flecks from the light off-camera are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old scratched glass inkwell.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2017 at 20:25:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 20:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, I consider this an FP and would have nominated it very shortly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one else has voted yet, I will elaborate on what I like so much about this photo. The inkwell does wonderful things to light and image, producing a very complex series of forms that could easily have inspired Cubists and Abstract Expressionists, yet they are strictly photographed from life. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support fascinating --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--cart-Talk 12:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The scratches definitely add an absract element to photograph, but what surface is the inkwell on top of? Thanks. WClarke 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WClarke: If you open the file's page there is a description of how the photo was made along with a photo of the setup for the photo and the surface and background. --cart-Talk 08:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, almost strictly from life, but certainly from life in the sense used in painting, where paintings from life don't have to literally copy every detail the artist sees to the minutest detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my QIC promotion of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 17:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christiansfeld brødremenighedskirken 31 maj 2015 crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 18:01:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Good and useful photo, but I dislike the bright, nearly featureless overcast, as well as the resulting flat light. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian and because it's a little soft (perhaps from fog). Please photograph this church again in more light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Julian. And maybe with a little more space on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlackMarble20161km.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2017 at 08:10:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

latest mosaic of lights of settlements planetwide from space, 2016. Extremely high resolution.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by NASA - uploaded by mareklug - nominated by mareklug -- Mareklug ^talk 08:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For its informational/map/technical merit. Also, very absorbing to navigate over. Support -- Mareklug ^talk 08:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I deplore NASA's use of the highly misleading Mercator projection, but the greatness of this photo as a reference is undeniable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Ikan:every projection is necessarily misleading - a globe is a globe is a globe. Gall-Peters is just as "wrong". We shouldn't succumb to zeitgeisty yet aimless activism, imo. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assure you, I'm well aware that any flat view of the Earth is a distortion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Ikan, I didn't want to come over as rude. Sorry! I should have chosen a different phrasing. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take offense, don't worry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pretty and informative. --cart-Talk 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting image. If you zoom in on North Korea, Pyongyang appears to be the only city with lights, if that says anything about the county. WClarke 18:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 933.12 Megapixel? Ok. Challenge accepted. :-) -- Colin (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wonderful -- Thennicke (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mausoleo de Shah Cheragh, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 30.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2017 at 05:21:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just consider this an outstanding photo of an awe-inspiringly beautiful place. I could easily see this as a finalist in next year's POTY. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nom, once more, Ikan! Poc o² 09:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I hope other people like this photo as much as I do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not tilted? --Pudelek (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pudelek: verticals look vertical to me on both sides. Please, consider that the picture was no taken from the front of the gate but further to the right Poc o² 14:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Building top need perspective fix --The Photographer 16:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer: what kind of perspective fix are you expecting? Please, don´t expect the top part to be horizontal, as that can only be expected if I was in front of it. If I apply perspective correction to "fix" that I will definitely deform the building Poc o² 19:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I underestand your point that this shoot not was done exactly from the center of the building. Thanks for your explain. I like this shoot. --The Photographer 19:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting object, but not really FP. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you can, please explain why you don't think so. I'm pretty surprised by the light interest in this photo so far, so perhaps you might be able to shed some light on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I move this comment from the talk page Poc o² 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Hi Ikan Kekek, you asked me to explain my comment. I said "Interesting object, but not really FP". I think it is interesting because of the design, it has been photographed amply before. But I also feel it is not FP-quality because of the distracting objects in the photograph, like the undone poster on the left, the corrugated roof-plate, camera and loudspeaker on top and the poster on the right. Besides, the perspective seems rather artificial. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mausoleo de Shah Cheragh, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 32.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2017 at 18:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info View of Shāh Chérāgh (Persian for "King of the Light"), a funerary monument and mosque in Shiraz, Iran. It houses the tomb of the brothers Ahmad and Muhammad, sons of Mūsā al-Kādhim and brothers of ‘Alī ar-Ridhā. The two took refuge in the city during the Abbasid persecution of Shia Muslims. The tombs became celebrated pilgrimage centres in the 14th century when Queen Tashi Khatun erected a mosque and theological school in the vicinity. Poc o² 18:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Poco a poco, edited by Jacek Halicki -- Poc o² 18:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 19:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I hadn't seen this photo before. Very nice, and an interesting view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat tempered support Great composition, lighting and I love that the tourists do not detract from it, although I wish we could so something about that distortion at the right. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: I fixed the perspective of the minaret in the back and also got rid of the crane in the background Poc o² 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perspective chosen is perfect, and with help from the tower and colors, it makes the building look very prominent and bold. Great photograph. WClarke 17:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunset in the Himalayas 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2017 at 15:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Nepal, national park Langtang. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit oversaturated methinks but ok. It also seems to be leaning but without reference it's impossible to say and I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it is actually level. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes, it's pretty and it's from the Himalayas, but there seems to be a lot of sunsets here lately despite what the guidelines suggest. Or maybe I should just go with the flow and nominate some myself since folks seems to enjoy them. --cart-Talk 17:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A remarkable scene, but the size was dearly bought by too much noise. I you could fix that, I'd be glad to support this picture --PtrQs (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Noisy, and without an exposure time in the metadata, I can't say whether this was avoidable or not. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suggested a crop, to remove a little more of the black silhouette bottom triangle, which I don't think adds much. I would have liked to see more layering of mountains on the left: it is not very prominent. The composition, balancing left and right, is very good. The noise is a result of processing I'm sure, but not an issue here -- there's no pixel level detail in the scene anyway and a little noise helps avoid posterisation banding. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I haven't really been able to make up my mind on this one. Technical quality is acceptable for me... the D800 is just naturally a noisier camera than some others due to the huge number of pixels. At any reasonable viewing size, the noise isn't detrimental. Ultimately, while it's not the most innovative or compelling image I've ever seen, its simple beauty and serenity sway me to support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water for use in aerial firefighting being carried in a bucket attached to a MChS Mil Mi-26 heavylift helicopter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2017 at 18:01:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Yuri Smityuk - uploaded by Russavia & Dura-Ace - nominated by Base -- Base (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Information: The Mil Mi-26 is the world's biggest helicopter and is used in the firefighting role by the Ministry of Emergency Situations in Russia. A photo of Mi-26 using water buckets, in order to give viewers a sense of the wow of this photo, can be seen here. Base (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Base (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 18:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's very interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support- unusual and nice --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Maybe I'm the only one, and though the image certainly is different, it feels weirdly artificial. The image is abstract in a way, but that doesn't seem to be the intent of the image. More than anything IMO, the background (I assume it's water) looks very unnatural and strange (to me I keep seeing lightning), and ruins the focus of the photograph, which is the bucket of water. Nothing in the image is particularly sharp, or shows good detail. Overall, it just feels off to me, and I don't really know how else to describe it. Sorry. WClarke 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without prejudice to the rest of your points, I feel sure the background is mostly treetops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: You're right, after looking at it they do appear to be treetops. WClarke 20:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I agree with WClarke about the technical shortcomings (it's noisy, although that may not have been avoidable given the circumstances, but also the red on the ropes looks posterized). However, it's a striking and unusual enough image to support. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose It is indeed an ingenious, unusual and interesting sight, but I think there are too many technical shortcomings in the picture to feature it. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per WClarke. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 10:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this a lot.... it's much better than other photos we have of the same subject. - Revent^talk 02:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Louis-DelphinOdobeyCadet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2017 at 18:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Henri Gaudichon, uploaded and nominated by FrancoisFC
Support -- FrancoisFC (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good, well-preserved and interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support From back when sitting for the group picture really meant sitting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is where time stands still. ;) I particularly like that each of the master craftsmen are holding their tools to indicate what they do, just like in a Renaissance portrait. --cart-Talk 08:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Χριστός Παντοκράτωρ (Άγιος Νικόλαος, Σκοπός) - Pantokrator (Agios Nikolaos, Skopos, Greece).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2017 at 07:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Pantokrator roof fresco, 19 cent. My shot. --Mile (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good; seems deserving to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support SMile. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) 10 month baby.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 16:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Female mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) with her 10-month-old baby. In the Titus Group in Rwanda. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; it's sort of hard to tell what's what in the image on first glance since we don't see the baby gorilla's face straight-on or any of the mother's face. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered composition, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Keeping in mind that impact can trump other factors, this baby's face moves me, so I think that if enough other people agreed, that would be a sufficient reason for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Slaunger. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:دمشق القديمة - التكية السليمانية.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 09:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created and uploaded by علي الصمادي - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion --The Photographer 11:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion and not sharp enough for FP. Sorry. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 12:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion, blown out clouds, CA and over-processed resulting in bright halos around the structures. Pretty place though. --cart-Talk 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion. --Gnosis (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 08:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:A bird in the park of Karnataka High Court.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 03:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - uploaded by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - nominated by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 03:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 03:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unsharp, probably passed at QIC because it's a large file, but not close to the quality of FP birds. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but please look at the birds that have been featured. Often, every feather can be seen clearly, and they are generally well lit, not in shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, a QI perhaps, but way below the bar we've set for bird pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 08:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chevrolet Master Special Eagle 1933 - Z16725.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2017 at 20:40:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info On a hike to a nature reserve where I live, I stumbled upon this great old car. It was on its way to a vintage car meeting close by. The owner/driver was happy to share some info about the car and I could take some photos before it sped away down the road (a little too fast for me as is evident in one of the pics in the cat). I love that I was able to photograph it on a dirt road in a rural setting since it is from the era of Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger and car chases down American country roads. It also looks the part of a battered getaway car since not much has been done to it since 1933. All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A competent photo of a relatively ugly car. Nothing special enough about this for FP. Daphne Lantier 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support The background is fairly busy, but the car's neutral color mitigates that. Other than that I really like its texture ... it's nice to see one of these old cars in not-quite-mint condition, as if they've been actively driven all this time. Daniel Case (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting subject. J e e 12:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with Daphne. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments. (I still think the car is great to look at. :) ) --cart-Talk 12:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de San Sarkis, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 66-68 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2017 at 17:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Serene, also nice to see a church with people in it for a change. --cart-Talk 20:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "...with people in it for a change". And we are talking about a christian temple in Tehran! Poc o² 20:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the view a lot, and the picture looks great at full-page size, but at full size, some parts are blurry. If in your judgment, some more processing would improve the quality, please do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ Support on fixing the CA on the right window muntins. Interesting near-symmetry otherwise, and one too often forgets there are churches in Iran. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: the CA is removed Poc o² 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - This is a great VI, but I'm opposing it because of the unsharpness of the chandelier, etc. I feel impelled to compare a church interior against the work Diliff has done as well as other work you and others have done. I would love to support a feature, if you can improve the sharpness of the various elements of this interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, please take into account that this is a photo with people in it. Having moving, living beings in an indoors-picture with poor light, will limit the options you have of long exposures as well as the number of shots you can take. All that will affect the overall quality of the pic. If you want a "Diliff-quality" shot of a place with people, you would probably have to equip them with neck supports first. --cart-Talk 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining about the clarity of people, only static things that are part of (or if you like, in) the church. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but the static things in the place are shot at the same time as the people so the same settings are used on those too. And seeing now that Poco couldn't use a tripod, I'd say it's remarkable that the photo is as good as it is. --cart-Talk 18:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: Sorry for not answering your first comment earlier. I didn't manage to upload a new version until now. I've applied some selective sharpening, maybe you find it acceptable. The quality of this shoot is surely not comparable to many others here mainly because tripods are strictly prohibited in the temple so I had to perform the three shots (it's a HDR) handheld, which was not easy. Poc o² 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Support - much better, and thanks for talking about the conditions you worked under. Gnosis, does that ban apply to tourists, too, and do they ban Jews from visiting churches and Christians from visiting synagogues? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this ban applies to tourists, because the government wants to showcase religious tolerance to the western world. With regard to your question about Jews being able to visit churches and Christians being able to visit synagogues, I don't think there is any ban for that, because what the theocratical regime cares is that Iranian Shia muslims DO NOT convert. Also I don't know if you know this but Tehran is the only Islamic capital where there is no Sunni mosque there. Iran has 15 percent Sunnis and Sunnis consist of about 85 to 90 percent of total population of muslims. This is perfect example of their religious oppression towards even other muslims. --Gnosis (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't know that. Unfortunately, I don't think that kind of intercommunal intolerance is uncommon. Most people wouldn't expect that a Muslim country that's as relatively mild as Malaysia would prohibit Shi'ahs from preaching or having any place of worship throughout the country, but that's exactly what they do, so it's presumably worse in that respect than Iran, where Sunnis presumably have mosques in Khuzestan and some other places. But intolerance in any guise is very bad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Gnosis (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Beautiful and suitable image of a religious place . Metagalaxy (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautifulll... --Ταπυροι (گپ) 18:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this picture is very educational, for the vast majority of Iranians who are born non Christian that can't walk into active churches inside Iran due to the government ban on Muslims attending church sessions in fear of possible conversion. About 5 years ago, I personally attempted to go and visit inside this church and the security guards didn't allow me to walk in due to this stupid ban. --Gnosis (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parliament House at dusk, Canberra ACT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 06:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Parliament House, Canberra, Australia.
Info All by me -- Thennicke (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blue hour shot as it should be. You may want to sharpen the pic a bit... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with Martin on all counts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a bit of stepping on the high-contrast edges of the building/sky. Is that a result of the HDR blend, or of too much sharpening there? If you do sharpen, perhaps do so selectively. But overall it is good. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost an abstraction like this. I like that the lights are sort of pastel ... a refreshing break from the (potentially) lurid colors usually used for this purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a little spooky, but good shot(s). --cart-Talk 15:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality for a night shot and the blue hour mood is very well captured. --A.Savin 18:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Wings, Siemens HQ Munich, April 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 11:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Others
Info "The Wings" by Studio Libeskind, a sculpture and light installation erected in 2016 for the newly built Siemens headquarters in Munich. Note: The few verticals that the building in the background actually has are in fact all vertical... . All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot of the now not-so-secret location of The Tesseract. --cart-Talk 15:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not the only tesseract in fictional universes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not loving this building, really, but the sculpture is interesting and this is a really well-taken photo that deserves a feature, regardless of whether I feel emotionally wowed or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Turquoise-spotted swallowtail (Graphium policenes) underside.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 06:54:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info This swallowtail was so intent on getting salts from the wet forest road in Ghana, that it tolerated me and my macro lens. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compo not good, also background, leaf isnt helping neither. --Mile (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The light is a bit flat, washing out some of the color on the butterfly and a bit of better contrast on the background would be nice. Want me to have a go at it? --cart-Talk 08:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please go ahead @W.carter: . Charles (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I would need the raw file. Please email me a link to some dropbox I'm sure you have and I'll see what I can do later tonight when I'm home. (I'm at work now) --cart-Talk 09:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, Done. The raw file straight from the can was actually very nice and it didn't need that much help, don't know why you tried to get it so very bright (or perhaps I got it all wrong..). I made two versions, the first is just normal fixing plus a few very bright, distracting glints on the sand cloned out, in the second I removed a distracting little dry grass as well. If you like any of them, please use them. The crop is a bit wider too. I also noticed that you snuck in another file, presumably for me to fix. Ok, I'll do that one too for you and e-mail you a link to the result. In the future though, please only send me files that I volunteer to help you with. Best, --cart-Talk 18:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. New version much better. I've reworked image to emulate your second version (I'd already done NR). Charles (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I agree that the light is harsh, but I will reserve judgement until I see what cart can do. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks better now. --cart-Talk 21:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the butterfly, but I don't like the near left corner, so I'd suggest cropping the butterfly much closer on the left side. Then if you like, you could adjust the crops on other sides, though that doesn't seem essential to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robiul3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 17:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Razurahmanbd, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What can I say? -- Yann (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 17:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really sad. No words! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per Jacopo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have compunctions over the idea that we may be spreading a bullshit story, and I respect those who are upset about a photo taken on the tracks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Any photograph that tells a story that is worth being heard deserves to be featured, and I highly suggest that everyone read the description. Also see my comment below. WClarke 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yann, and anyone else: It is worth noting that there are two photographs (Rabiul.jpg & Robiul2.jpg) that, in addition to this photograph, appear to make up a set. They are all of the same subject in the same place, and they all have the same description, so should we nominate them as a set, as it seems the author (Razurahmanbd) intended? If the author is around, just to be completely clear, are they intended to be viewed together? Thanks. WClarke 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the 3 images, I chose this one, which is of better quality and better composition. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose See below. A documentary photo that is almost hard to watch... Wrt WClarke's comment, I don't see what three photos can say better than this one photo can. Not sure they are intended as a set as many photographers simply number photos of similar scene/subjects as a way of distinguishing them from each other. --cart-Talk 21:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I can't support a dangeroux for a children. Thanks Colin for notifiquer it --The Photographer 21:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful neutral A shattering image, but even that cannot make me !vote for an image of someone posed sitting on what appears to be an actively used rail track. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although Daniel has a point --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. I very much doubt such an image would be published in the UK by any responsible picture editor -- lest it encourage a child to play on the railway tracks. I appreciate he lives at the railway station, and this is a third-world railway track rather than a busy high-speed line, but there seems no good reason to photograph him sitting on the tracks. Further, the background story, though heartbreaking and one I do not doubt, is unsourced and supplied by an unknown and inactive user. It is hard to see how this image/story could be responsibly used for an educational purpose. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sure is it encouraging? are we going through something not so much about the image? --2001:B07:644F:23A4:28C4:10AC:2FE9:24D5 19:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin: Please stick to review the quality and value of the picture. Making a wrong political statement about children living standards doesn't help. I worked for children living in Bombay Central railway station, helping them to find solutions to their problems, but it seems you really have no idea about the lives of such children. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yann, I have made no "political statement about children living standards". I'm talking about responsible photography, and responsible sourcing of a story. -- Colin (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Among all probabilities, this track is probably just beside his home, as there are a lot of slums by railway tracks, just because there is unoccuppied land there. Not only it is dangerous, but it is also dirty and noisy. And yet it is his living habitat. It is the place where he spends most of his time, trying to make a living picking up whatever he could find there. So you doesn't know what you are talking about. Still your comment is a kind of political statement. It is arrogant and scornful. You want to decide for the child where he should stay and live. Regards, D (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yann, could you cool it a bit please. The comments you are making bear absolutely no resemblance to what I've written. I'm not making any political statement. I have not said anything about where he should stay and live. Have you read the links I posted below. It's about photographers and precisely where they choose to pose and compose their subjects, and the effect that has on other photographers posing subjects on railway lines and getting themselves killed. Those parallel lines trailing into the distance are a deadly magnet for photographers. This is nothing to do with the boy. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't need to ping me. I always watch my nominations. Yes, your comment has everything to do with the boy. You assume that for him seating in the tracks is a game, or/and that this is a set up by the photographer to make the image more powerful. I think you are wrong on both points. Even if the boy's story is not the truth, he most probably just happens to be here when the photograph passed by. The tracks are his living environment. Why can't he be photographed where he lives? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not given any indication, an indication in the slightest, that I think the boy thinks sitting on the tracks is a game. I cannot read the photographers's mind and have no interest in it. I haven't doubted the story, just question the ability for a responsible publisher to use it: it is just a random story on the internet. Real publishers would only accept such a story from a trusted source. I live next to a busy main road, but I don't photograph my children standing in the middle of it. It is perfectly possible to photograph this boy where he lives, without him sitting on the tracks. Yann, I don't think you've taken on board the links I posted below. This image/story cannot be responsibly published, and I'm far from the only person here that thinks so. I'm unwatching this page now. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, I have to agree with Colin and Daniel. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, sorry --A.Savin 19:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Neutral. (13:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)) the photograph is visually stunning and is accompanied by background info that really makes it speak volumes more. I don't see the above oppose reasons as strong enough frankly. For concerns about children playing on the tracks, the image is already accompanied by a red box warning, and if you ask me, a child's first thought really could well be: "Look what happened to the kid who ran on the tracks!". That being said, I wouldn't be able to forgive the feeling within me to deny coverage of other stories told worldwide that are heard far less on places like the internet. Although Humans of New York is helping the cause recently, at least this image is freely licensed! Seb26 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Seb26, photos on railway tracks can look "visually stunning". That's why they are popular and why every year people are killed taking photos on railway tracks, and kids are killed playing on them. See this PetaPixel search for multiple articles describing deaths, the backlash that irresponsible publishers face if they post such images, and a good video highlighting how easy it is to get killed. Despite my comment about about third-world tracks, in fact more people died taking selfies in India than anywhere in world, study says. Way more. and that includes selifies taken in front of an oncoming train. Any publisher using such an image would face considerable negative press calling for the head of the photo editor. That means, despite any photographic qualities, the educational value of this image is extremely low, and on a project dedicated to educational media, that means it is not among our finest, and not FP. I really wish the photographer had taken their photos in a safe location. Please reconsider supporting this; it isn't the sort of image we want to encouage. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Seb26 has a point about how a child might view this photo, I've changed my vote based on Daniel's comment. Since I live in an area with lots of inactive rails, I tend to forget the perils in other places. Colin, while the article you link to says that there were 11 train related selfie deaths world-wide that year (which is bad enough) it is about selfie deaths, not train-related, and it also says that "Most of the Indian deaths were water-related". I think this would be a more relevant source. --cart-Talk 11:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[12] The backlash against a photo on National Geographic's Instagram profile as recently as in the last two weeks definitely concerned me. Thank you for the links. I still feel that this boy's story is related to his home at the station. I don't fault the photographer at all in this respect and do not think that he deliberately decided to have the boy sit on the tracks. But it is right what you say, being an FP means it'll reach the main page and potentially expose Commons to backlash or outrage. I am going to be

Neutral because I can still see that out of all possible photographs and all possible poses made on one, this photograph is going to be the least likely to encourage people or children to do it. Seb26 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm doubtful about the story mentioned in the file page. The beggar mafia is very strong in Asia. They even amputate the children to attract the sympathy. The children will say the story what their mafia leader teach them. They are mostly associated with tracks; so I see anything wrong in this photography though. They will quickly adapted to that environment and quickly achieve the skills to board and alight from a moving train. J e e 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if his "natural habitat" is among the rails the picture is a very bad double take on it. It says something in the description and shows something that can easily be interpreted in a different way. It also lacks any sensitivity (or rather humility from the photographer's part) that great photographers show in their work, you need not to go any further than GMB Akash, the undisputed king of Bangladeshi street photography to see what I mean. Also as Jkadavoor said above me, it is a thing in South-Asia and everyone should approach any story about a child amputee with caution. Is the story about this picture plausible? Yes, sadly tying up children and/or putting them in sacks and dumping in water part is all too familiar. Is it likely, with the amputation and all? Probably not, but in any case impossible to verify. Finally I'd just like to point out this is about Bangladesh, not India, which is a completely different beast even if they look similar to the rest of the world. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please talk more about the humility of the photographer. I feel like I could really learn something if you would expound on that a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: what I meant is that the description and the photo itself are at odds with each other (not just content-wise). On one hand the photo itself is very distant, lacking any intimacy (especially the other 2 in the series), like the photographer was only interested in taking a good quality picture. On the other hand the story (true or not) is very intimate but this is not reflected in the visuals at all. I'd say a case of taking a picture for yourself for your own reasons, and you're only interested in the subject as a visual element. Thus my comment about the lack of humility. Again, I'd advise you to browse GMB Akash' pictures of Bangladeshi misery (no better way to put it), read the stories, and see how they connect in a very meaningful yet same time respectful manner, and how he finds the joy and humanity in even those unfortunate people/events. Or like him on Facebook he posts a picture with a story almost every day. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case, WClarke, Martin Falbisoner, Kabelleger, Seb26, and KennyOMG: Your oppose votes (or comments) are for the wrong reason. Commons is not a place restricted to politically correct images. This is clear a case of COM:NOTCENSORED. I feel it is also a bit hypocritical, when some people criticize other FPC votes for not technical reasons (military, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: First, although my !vote above seems to have started this cavalcade of opposes, I myself did not !vote oppose. Second, if by not participating in featuring this image I am saving lives, I'll take any term of abuse you hurl at me (I have opposed, at least initially, plenty of other FP candidates where I thought the photographer was putting themselves at risk). "Politically correct"? Apart from the increasing use of a once-ironic term borrowed from Chinese Communism becoming battered into meaninglessness when we use it for every point of view we wish to delegitimize without attempting to seriously attack the underlying arguments (to the point that it's often a tacit admission the other side has a point you don't want it to have), I fail to see what is "political" about a very real danger. If National Geographic is not immune from this criticism, why should we be? Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed my comment above. Yann (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I even support the nomination...!

--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not featuring a photograph is not censorship, and not encuraging photographers to get themself killed and traumatizing other people in doing so has hardly anything to do with political correctness. IMHO. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the censorship argument would make sense if we were voting to delete or keep this image. But this image and its story will stay available on this site long after this vote. The selection of featured pictures is clearly very strategic and is evidently about advertising the project just as much as identifying technical quality. There is evidence to suggest this could harm the project, so it is for that reason that I don't think this should be featured. Seb26 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not oppose on grounds of "political correctness" but rather because it's 1) somewhat dishonest and 2) lacking in my opinion (see my reply to Ikan). Besides the concerns about the backstory are valid as well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WClarke. The railway sets the environment, and is part of the story of the character. Gyrostat (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capsicum baccatum in Saúde flea market, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 17:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- The Photographer 17:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When I promoted this on QIC, I had a feeling I might see it here. The light isn't ideal, but it's what you had to deal with. Overall, I think it's a nice composition, it's interesting, and the peppers nearest you are quite sharp. I think it's good enough, overall, to make a nice feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A festival of bright and inviting colors. Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very colorful and nice. How did you do this one? Ladder, balcony close by, climbing the nearby stall, or? --cart-Talk 07:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titoe + 1.90m (my height). I did about 20 photos until I could get the sharpness, due to the low luminosity and my position, it was difficult to keep the camera in the same position. The people in the market know me and they know I'm crazy, I've got people not watching me --The Photographer 13:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I think all of us have some "reputation" where we live.

It took me some time to convince the farmers here I wasn't poaching on their lands. Now their kids come up to me and ask me to photograph their cats/rabbits/hamsters/whatever. --cart-Talk 19:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your lovely comment and I think that apparently we have many things in common and I would like to know more about your history. In Venezuela I remember it was impossible to convince people because the situation there is like a country at war, but here in Brazil people believe that I am a "gringo" (I don't know how define it), the Brazilian is possibly the most welcoming culture that can exist. --The Photographer 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now I'm hungry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 12:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 05:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 20:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Episkopi 01-2017 img06 Kourion.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 18:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by A.Savin.
Support --A.Savin 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love that archeological site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely juxtaposed column ruins, helped compositionally by the clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Les Parapluies de Viborg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 21:20:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 21:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 21:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I expected this one to be here. I like the whimsy here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it, btw, There is another similar Poco a poco FP --The Photographer 20:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there are in fact two by Poco and they are great, but this one is shot in pouring rain which I think added a small twist to it. Thankfully, there was a shop with an awning where I could get some shelter for the camera. --cart-Talk 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 05:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support exceptional photo, love the composition, bright colors, and whimsy of the umbrellas hanging from a wire. PumpkinSky talk 14:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Meisje met de parel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 23:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Portrait
Info created by Johannes Vermeer - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Girl with a Pearl Earring has always been the painting by Vermeer I like the least. It should be featured anyway, of course. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC) per discussion below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Daphne Lantier 06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose The image we have here is not the one in the source, and nowhere near as good. The source image much more closely matches File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg which claims the same source. That file is 178 megapixels, though I suspect it is actually upsampled (if downsampled 50% it looks much better and is still 45 megapixels). Major differences are that the background in the source is brown with clear cracking; the colour of her headscarf is different, and the dark patch in the scarf near her left eye is not crushed blacked but still shows colour and detail. Further the cracking on the picture shows signs that the image has been oversharpened. So I think this image has had significant colour adjustments, strong contrast enhancement that has crushed the darker areas to black, and strong sharpening. I think the larger image has merit for FP, but needs some analysis to confirm whether its very large size is justified, and if not, what degree of downsizing would restore it to correct sharp proportions.

I have discovered why the source does not match. An earlier version of the Commons page linked to the source JPG (in addition to surrounding information pages) but this was removed by Crisco for some reason. Looking at the link through the Internet Archive here gives a file that is visually similar to this one, though quite a bit smaller. So I wonder if the museum has improved the copy they display on the website since Crisco first uploaded it. I'll drop Crisco a note. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my recollection, this was uploaded exactly as I found it on the website (as can be seen by the archive link). However, rather than use the automatic download resolution, which was downsampled, I had loaded the image at its full resolution in viewing mode, then downloaded from there using judicious screenshotting. It may have loaded at 125% or something similar as its "maximum resolution"; I suspect the MET's website does the same thing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for why I removed the direct link to the JPG: to the best of my understanding, we are supposed to link to the host web-page rather than the image directly, to ensure any licensing information or similar is readily available. Hence the removal to the direct JPG link. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. So I suspect the image on the web page has changed considerably since you screenshotted it. I think the current version on their website is better is better and the other high-res file (File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg) a better place from which to create an FP (if downsized). This file here is the one used by all the Wikipedias and has been featured, etc. The other file, although from the same museum source, is really quite different. It isn't an obvious case for simply overwriting this one per Commons:Overwriting existing files. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Absolutely PERFECT! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stargazer and Pegasus F43 in flight over Atlantic (KSC-20161212-PH LAL01 0009).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 15:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Airliners
Info created by NASA/Lori Losey - uploaded by Huntster - nominated by Dura-Ace -- Dura-Ace (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dura-Ace (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the space between the clouds and the airplane, nice composition --The Photographer 15:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and point of view. --Cayambe (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very clear photo of obvious encyclopedic/educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as uploader. It's a beautiful image, one I'd love to have hanging on a wall (anyone know a good way to make that happen?) — Huntster (t @ c) 21:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours/contrast -- Thennicke (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Airliners

File:Torre de la Doncella, Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 215-217 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 19:44:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info View of the Maiden Tower during the blue hour Old City, Baku, capital of Azerbaijan. The tower was built according to some sources in VIII-VII B.C. and belongs to the ensemble of historic monuments in the Old City of Baku inscribed in 2001 under the UNESCO World Heritage List. The 29.5 metres (97 ft)-high tower is one of Azerbaijan's most distinctive national emblems, and is thus featured on Azeri currency notes and official letterheads. Poc o² 19:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks to my eyes like it's leaning back, with the top farther back than the bottom. I'm not sure why. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose trees, strange leaning --Mile (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support something's odd re: perspective, cf. buildings in the background (some verticals are straight, others are not). Still, the overall impression is very wow-y imo. I really like colors & composition. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 18:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Earth and the Moon 2016-07-05 0428Z.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 06:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info Eath and the Moon, image captured by NASA’s DSCOVR satellite - uploaded by Meow - nominated by Price Zero -- Price Zero (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Price Zero (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What's the yellowish ring around the moon? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is because of how DSCOVR EPIC is making photos. It's taking many images on different wavelength and they are stitched together later for one multi-color image. Apparently it's good enough for Earth, but Moon is "too fast" so layers are misaligned. You can see here that on the opposite side there is blue-ish ring. Yarl 💭 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the explanation. This inaccurate depiction bugs me, though, so I don't think I can support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending resolution of Ikan's question. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it is stunning to see a photo of both these stellar bodies, I'm a bit disappointed when it comes to such a quality error. When a Commons photographer can get a really nice image by layering photos of the moving moon, using a normal camera and a PC, you'd think that NASA with all its technology and knowledge would know how to adjust layers. --cart-Talk 09:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Louis XIV in place d'armes of Versailles.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 09:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs at least a crop to remove the building at left. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A QI but no wow. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin ... looks like it was taken with a DP/S, actually, even if it wasn't, and compositionally there is nothing exceptional about it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Certainly useful but not exceptional, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Минарет Ајдар кади џамија Битољ (Minaret of Hajdar Kadi Mosque, Bitola).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 10:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Close-up of minaret of Ottoman Hajdar Kadi Mosque, Bitola (Macedonia). My shot. --Mile (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting lighting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing that you were able to capture this shot just as the minaret was falling over. Excellent timing! Daphne Lantier 08:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No Daphne, this is a shot from the launch pad of "Mosque 1" and proof that Macedonia is joining the space race. --cart-Talk 09:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good use of contrast and the textures are great -- Thennicke (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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